How Do You Confront Utter Madness?

Thomas,

YOU: if one takes an honest look at reality and the history of humanity, it will not be, not until the coming of the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth on the seventh day.

No sir. If one takes an honest look at reality, the only thing that humans fight over are perceived differences that are not real. Ethnic and cultural differences such as diet and clothing due to geographic location are not things to fight over. The only other thing that makes cultures different is religion. The only other thing that makes ethnicities different is skin colour and eye shape. These are also not things to fight over. This leaves us with just one difference that is perceived to be worth fighting over which is a false difference. That is religion. Our version of God vs yours.

Religion is clearly the most divisive ideology there could ever be.
It is a false difference between people. People pretending to know the creator and the one true path, are the only thing standing in our way to peace and one brotherhood of man. There is literally no other reason for humans to be divided into groups.

YOU: I look past heaven to the Kingdom, as it says, "It is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED".

Saved from what?
I'm doing just fine thank you.

Part II

You asked, "Does God care if we believe in him Thomas?
Or does it only matter to him that we be good to one another?

I have said numerous times, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof", think about this statement, this should answer both of your questions.

Another that answers it is, "Faith without works is DEAD".

You also wrote, "If he cares about the belief part, why?"

First off, we can have a "Christian" heart in the true sense of the word without even believing in God.

Second, even tho Jesus did teach us to love one another because it is the right thing to do since all of us are children of God and since God became One of Us that makes us all brothers and sisters of God but also God has a Plan for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in spite of the fact that we can be so "stiff necked and hard-headed" as the Old Testament Moses pointed out, that we can be deaf and blind.

One of the things that Jesus said to the "religious" of His day was, "Tax collectors and prostitutes will be entering the Kingdom before you", notice He said before not that they wouldn't also.

Believing in God is not some kind of ticket to heaven as some seem to think.

I look past heaven to the Kingdom, as it says, "It is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED".

I have also said many times, "If God was even remotely like what some of the people that know His Name think that He Is, I would not want anything to do with Him.

Christianity is not a religion even tho it is to some, it is a relationship between God and a person whereas Judaism is not a religion either, it is a relationship between God and a people.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIMMY2

Part I

You wrote, "I'm surprised that you think that my idea of the whole world living together as one human society, working together to make all of our lives better is so crazy."

I don't think that it is crazy, I am just saying that if one takes an honest look at reality and the history of humanity, it will not be, not until the coming of the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth on the seventh day.

You can live your life in such a way as to live it to the best of your ability for your fellow man but there is no way that you can force it on others, people have used all kinds of reasons to force themselves and/or their ideas on others.

You wrote, "The only difference between me and what Jesus taught is that I preach that people should be good for goodness sake, as opposed to being good because someone tells you that your lord God commands it."

It seems as if you do not have a clue what Jesus taught. Jesus did say, "I give you a new COMMAND, love one another as I have loved you", emphasis mine. That command is if we take Jesus up on His invitation to "Come follow Me".

With so many people spewing out such vile, bitter hatred in Jesus's Name, how many take the aforementioned COMMAND seriously and yet still call themselves "Christian"? rhetorical

Knowing God's Name doesn't necessarily make one a Christian, it can be a start.

What Jesus taught, and you should know what He said even if you do not understand it considering that you have read it at least three times, went way beyond just being a good neighbor and brother or sister to the rest of humanity.

Even tho the Apostles were pretty much clueless, one of the things that they did get before the coming of the Holy Spirit was, "These are hard sayings", and they are yet they are so simple.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world" and He said it because it is True.

God's Plan is for EVERYONE and I mean that very simply and totally, how many even think that this is so and how many even want it to be so? rhetorical.

People don't need religion to force themselves on others, people don't need religion to lord it over others and to say that religion is the only excuse that people have used to justify less than nice, shall we say, actions against their fellow human beings is faulty reasoning.

Justilthen said:

"The mind comes along if the heart is alive. With the heart dead or unlit and uninspired the mind can get to be an ugly thing"

Here you are suggesting that people who don't believe what you believe have dead hearts. A combination of arrogance and delusion that is beyond fathomable. Such is the mind of the religionist. It is not hard to justify killing people with dead hearts, if you really believe that God is true, and their hearts truly are dead.

YOU CONTINUE: "no guiding light that rises above the mundane and dense"

So sad that this faith of yours leads you to observe the manifest world as mundane and dense.

I, without irrational beliefs, find the manifest universe to be exceptionally and endlessly fascinating, and an on going mystery of the highest order. My life in it is enriched, and filled with great joy, happiness, love, and loved ones, to whom my heart is wide open, as it is to all people and all living things. I find great joy in the wonder of our abilities to reason and discover, and I do not need to imagine a higher order relieve myself of this mundane and dense reality that you see as a result of your faith.

Don't get me wrong, I imagine a higher order all the time when being contemplative about the great mystery of life, I can just never imagine anything like that that follows logic and reason, so there is no reason to decide that I believe that to be true. I need to become irrational to do so. It has nothing to do with opening my heart that is already open. It has everything to do with closing my mind to other possibilities.

My mind is more open than yours because forming a belief about what life is and how it got here, if it did at all, without having good evidence, reason, and logic, to do so, is closing your mind to reason and logic, and to other possibilities.

If you make the statement "God created everything" as a fact, which you have done several times, it is you who are closing your mind to all possibilities.

I, on the other hand, am open to all possibilities including creative source. But if I choose to believe that "creative source" is the answer, now I have closed my mind to the other possibilities. And I gain no benefit from this. I have left rationality behind for no reason. And once you accept the idea of leaving rationality behind when it comes to the most important things in life, you have developed a dangerous ideology.

It is you who sees the manifest world as mundane and dense and lacking something higher.
And how sad that is for you.

ThomasBaum,

Hello. Thanks for the post. I agree with you. Who knows what is true, and certainly what is true for another. I am a great believer in the human journey, the individuals process and pathways. We each need to make our own way. We are served best when we are not only given the freedom to use our free will without external manipulations on it by others, but are encouraged to do so. Advice, counsel, guidance are all good, especially when asked. But we do not know what any other person, their soul, may need to experience in life. We grow best when we can freely make our own choices. It gives deeper investment and involvement, and the consciousness matures far better. As a plant if you will given the best soil, it has what it needs to grow healthy.

One thing that you said:

"Sometimes, one can get so caught up in religion, dogma, spirituality, rules and regulations or a multitude of other things that one can leave no room for God."

Yes. Some religions and dogmas and belief systems exactly get in the way of availability and (re)openness to our birthright, the Presence of the Divine in our lives and hearts. The mind comes along if the heart is alive. With the heart dead or unlit and uninspired the mind can get to be an ugly thing, having no guiding light that rises above the mundane and dense.

Peace to you.

Justin

Thomas,

I'm surprised that you think that my idea of the whole world living together as one human society, working together to make all of our lives better is so crazy. I am talking about the same thing that Jesus talked about. All humans are equal. We should all be working together not apart. A brotherhood of man.

The only difference between me and what Jesus taught is that I preach that people should be good for goodness sake, as opposed to being good because someone tells you that your lord God commands it.

Does God care if we believe in him Thomas?
Or does it only matter to him that we be good to one another?

If he cares about the belief part, why?

Frederick,

Thank you for your comments. It's nice to have another voice of reason around. Peter is pretty easy to debate though. And fun for me because I have all of his angles covered. Fish in a barrel.

He tries very hard to make his argument about how the atheist can not make sense of good and bad without an absolute authority, not realizing all the while that he doesn't have one either, until he can prove that his God exists, which of course he can not. Not only can he not prove that his god exists, but I can actually prove that it doesn't, because he gives us enough details about this God to find logical fallacies making said God impossible to be true.

So Peter is left in the same position as the rest of us. No ultimate standard for good and bad. Just a world screwed up by those who think that they have one.

Peter,

YOU: No, you form a belief against, not about and not due to the lack of evidence but rather because of your starting point and foundational presuppositions.

No. Due to absence of any evidence for, and a mountain of evidence against, and logical fallacy.

YOU: And I have asked you to explain how you can know anything as certain without an absolute, objective, unchanging authority and you have admitted you can't.

No. I admitted that I can not know what is good and bad with certainty and neither can you. Your God is a logical fallacy so I can know with certainty that it does not exist.

YOU: Therefore you cannot make sense of any of this, whereas the Christian can.

No the Christian can not. Not with a god that is a logical fallacy.

Peter,

YOU: I have evidence to the contrary showing that the Christian faith is not a recycled myth. Since neither one of us were there we can both show our different views but without God you have no way of making sense of which is true. Truth is what really happened

You have no such evidence. There isn't any.

YOU: You keep saying that the Christian God is myth, that you know he is myth so you have not left things open.

I said, I leave things open when I don't know the answer. In the case of Christianity, I do know the answer. I have evidence a reason and logic on my side.

YOU: Whom did you use as your final authority?

Not "whom". "What". I used logic, reason and evidence. I appeal to a "what" not a "whom" who does not exist.

YOU: The evidence is limitless.

There is zero evidence for, and a mountain of evidence against.
What you are claiming as evidence is a joke. It is 2000 year old hearsay, 10 times removed and has been discredited hundreds of different ways.

YOU: You have already ruled it all out by your claims of logical fallacy and you ability to be neutral and unbiased. I have news for you Timmy, we are all biased to one worldview or the other.

Not me. I am completely neutral as to the origin of life and the universe, excluding of course those theories that have been proven to be false. Like yours for example.

Peter,

YOU: You are the one judging it to be a logical fallacy. I will have to leave that one for a later date. It is too involved. But you do assume based on your assessment. That recycled myth is BS as well as assessing without prejudice. I don't think many readers to this forum would believe that"

Is this supposed to be an argument to the point?
I fail to recognize this as anything but grumbling.

YOU: If you don't know how things came to be and cannot offer a reason then how can you be logical in saying that the Christian worldview is wrong?

Logical fallacy among other things eliminates it as a possibility.

YOU: But discounting a worldview that can make sense of why we are here without having an alternative answer is very illogical.

Yes it would be. But I have not done that
I have discounted a world view that can NOT make sense why we are here, and I do not need an alternative answer to do so.

YOU: It doesn't make sense to you because you are rebelling against your Maker.

There is no maker to rebel against. Only the idea of a specific one that you propose which is a logical fallacy.

YOU: You want to dictate what is without any clue as to what is.

I have never wanted to dictate anything. You are getting worse and worse as this debate goes on. When you run out of logic, you revert back to Bible thumper. lol

YOU: Only by an absolute, objective, unchanging God can there ever be any certainty to what IS and why.

Too bad you can't think of one that isn't a logical fallacy based on ancient myths.

JUSTILLTHEN

Thank you for your post, we are all in this together. It says that we should encourage one another and we should.

As far as the intricacy of God's Plan goes, only God can know how everything fits together, but as far as the simplicity of God's Plan is, in the big picture as it were, is what some cannot even imagine.

God cares and so should we. God created ALL OF US and whether we like it or not, we are all family, I would say a dysfunctional family, but never the less a family.

I find in rather amazing that some think that we, humans, are going to bring about a perfect world, whatever that is.

This might just be an opinion but we have to live in reality and not just inside our own heads.

One of the things about free will, God gave it to all not just some. It seems that some not only want to tell others what to do but also what to think, of course this is not some new developement but is very much a human thing.

God never said that if we would turn to Him that He would keep us out of all trouble and that our life would be honky-dory, so to speak, but that He would be with us to help us thru it.

When someone does something, not only do we not know why that someone did it but we also do not know the repercussions of said act on who knows how many others.

Sometimes there is talk on here about right and wrong but if people think about it, one can do the right thing for the wrong reason and also someone can do the wrong thing for the right reason.

I have found that it can be hard enough living my own life at times, sometimes I wonder why so many try to live other people's life rather than their own, have you ever noticed that?

We should try to help others and if asked, to offer advise but to try and run other people's life and forcing oneself on another is wrong.

Sometimes, one can get so caught up in religion, dogma, spirituality, rules and regulations or a multitude of other things that one can leave no room for God.

There are some that do not believe in God at all and yet there God is, shining thru their heart, and yet there are others that know God's Name and about the only thing some of them do is give God a bad name because who in their right mind would want to have anything to do with God if God was anything like some think He is?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy, how do you want to argue with somebody who tries to convince you that your lack of a belief is a belief? It is this "black is white" nonsense that is at the core of all religions, but splendidly touted for the Christian religion by Peter Huff.

You may say: "It's raining outside". Then he comes: "Where is your absolute standard that enables you to make such a statement unless you belief in Jesus"?

In another post he says: "perfect justice demands perfect obedience". How can this slave mentality be combined with human dignity?

Not for me, thanks.

Finishing,

ME: "Sure you do. You believe that the Christian God is not the cause. That is a belief."

TMMY: "That is a belief, you are correct. But it is not a belief about how the universe got here."

Yes, it is, just not your belief.

TIMMY: "That it what I do not form a belief about due to lack of evidence."

No, you form a belief against, not about and not due to the lack of evidence but rather because of your starting point and foundational presuppositions.

TIMMY: "However I have many beliefs about how it did not get here.
I have already stated a million times my evidence and reason and logic for my belief that our universe was not created by the Christian God."

And I have asked you to explain how you can know anything as certain without an absolute, objective, unchanging authority and you have admitted you can't. Therefore you cannot make sense of any of this, whereas the Christian can. The precondition for intelligibility is the Christian God.

Continuing,

ME: You are the one who is telling me what cannot be so by the Christian God. Is it not reasonable to offer your logic for why it can't be?

TIMMY: "I have. Logical fallacy. Plus mountains of evidence showing it to be a recycled myth from our primitive past."

I have evidence to the contrary showing that the Christian faith is not a recycled myth. Since neither one of us were there we can both show our different views but without God you have no way of making sense of which is true. Truth is what really happened.

ME: "You don't leave it open, you limit it just as I do.

TIMMY: "Not true."

You keep saying that the Christian God is myth, that you know he is myth so you have not left things open. You state over and over again in different posts your disbelief. You do limit.

ME: "Your limit does not include the Christian God"

TIMMY: "It did, until your story was assessed to be a logical fallacy."

Whom did you use as your final authority?

ME: "You look at the evidence and deny it. But you are not neutral in your beliefs. You are biased"

TIMMY: "There is no evidence. I am not Biased. There just is no evidence for. And a mountain of evidence against. And to top it all off, the whole premise is a logical fallacy."

The evidence is limitless. You have already ruled it all out by your claims of logical fallacy and you ability to be neutral and unbiased. I have news for you Timmy, we are all biased to one worldview or the other.

This is my last post until Friday, the Lord willing Timmy,

ME: "You assume that the Bible is not a Self revelation of God, so you use your limited knowledge as the ultimate authority in judging its truth claims"

TIMMY: "I do not assume that it is not a self revelation of God, I assess that it is not based on it's logical fallacy for one, and the mountain of evidence that it is recycled myth. All reasonable and logical reasons to asses without prejudice, that it is not a self revelation of god."

You are the one judging it to be a logical fallacy. I will have to leave that one for a later date. It is too involved. But you do assume based on your assessment. That recycled myth is BS as well as assessing without prejudice. I don't think many readers to this forum would believe that.

ME: "Any worldview, to be reasonable, must offer an explanation for what is here"

TIMMY: "Nonsense. If we don't know, we don't know. Making up an answer because you don't have one is not necessary, and therefore, not logical."

If you don't know how things came to be and cannot offer a reason then how can you be logical in saying that the Christian worldview is wrong?

ME: "I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Lots of logic"

TIMMY: "Yes it is. Admitting you don't know something that you don't know is very very logical. Making up an answer because you do not have one is illogical."

But discounting a worldview that can make sense of why we are here without having an alternative answer is very illogical. And the answer is that we were created by God who has revealed Himself to us by His written revelation of Himself.

TIMMY: "You do not offer "the only reason that can make sense of this" because the reason you offer is a logical fallacy that can not make any sense of this, so how can it be the only reason that makes sense when it doesn't make sense?"

It doesn't make sense to you because you are rebelling against your Maker. You want to dictate what is without any clue as to what is. Only by an absolute, objective, unchanging God can there ever be any certainty to what IS and why.

Hi Justillthen,

JUSTILLTHEN: "No one, no religion, no culture or society, Owns Him."

You are right in your statement. Sorry I misread it. It is late for me and I am not wearing my glasses.

I mistook own for owe.

Finally,

JUSTILLTHEN: "God is Creator of All."

True.

JUSTILLTHEN: "No one, no religion, no culture or society, Owns Him."

How do you know that? We owe Him our very life, the breathe we breathe, the food we eat, everything we have for He can take any of the above away, just like that.

JUSTILLTHEN: "If you insist on Ownership you buy into darkness. Boom. End of story."

So says you. How do you determine what you believe is true? It boils down to epistemology. How do you know what you know?

JUSTILLTHEN: "All your dogma is meaningless to me in this moment."

True. (1 Corinthians 2:14) You need the revelation of His Word and the witness of His Spirit to open your heart to the truth. You need to understand the testimony of Jesus who said, "I and the Father are one. If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" and "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

These are hard truths for someone who does not have the ability to see. Will you seek His mercy and grace in asking Him to see? Will you then seek His Word that He might perhaps reveal Himself to you?

JUSTILLTHEN: "Please contemplate honestly these concepts. Exclusivity in God amounts to darkness in the human sphere."

No, for if there was another way that God's justice could be appeased there would be no need for a Savior, someone to save us, for we are incapable of saving ourselves.

Jesus came to set the captives free from punishment, penalty and power of sin. You my friend are a captive to sin for you know the good you should do in your heart and yet fail to do it. Will you look to Jesus or will you continue on the treadmill of your good deeds outweighing you bad deeds, all the while not realizing that perfect justice demands perfect obedience and yet perfect love has supplied that justice to those who believe and in the process given them a new nature?

Continuing,

The difference between religion as such and Christianity is an intimate relationship with our Maker in which He has taken upon Himself the task of justifying man for the evil man has committed by the Son volunteering to be man and meet all God's righteous requirements, pay the debt or penalty for his wrongdoing and provide His life as a substitute, the righteous One for the sinner for those who believe.

So the difference between Christianity and other religious beliefs is that God has taken upon Himself our justification, the only way that His justice could be met and yet still save believers. There is no "good" works or trying to earn your way to God on your own merit for how could we ever live perfectly before a pure and holy God once we have broken even one of His laws? Faith in Jesus Christ is what saves a person from the wrath of God.

JUSTILLTHEN: "I essentially agree here, Peter. Religions that espouse absolutist dogma are murderous and evil. Can't say it more clear. When we say Only Way we open the door to destruction and death and darkness."

That is because you do not see the Bible as God's inspired, inerrant, written revelation and highest authority to man, a true revelation of who He is and what He has done.

Does God not have the right to determine how His creatures will live and what kind of justice He administers? He cannot be loving without being just. How could a loving God allow evil to go unpunished?

Does God not have the right to determine the way to restore our relationship with Him? Since the Son is the only one who can do this, the way to God is exclusive. As the bible says, "Those who have the Son have life." (John 3:11-21)

Hi Justillthen,

JUSTILLTHEN: "I just read your posts and have some issues.
First I am happy that you have the beliefs that you do and I am not about changing them or negating them, as I have said. They are contrary beliefs to mine in many ways."

True, they are contrary. So what makes you think that two contrary beliefs about God can both be right beliefs about God?

JUSTILLTHEN: "But I do not find much difference between your accusation of atheism and what Timmy, as one, accuses christianity of. Your quote:

"This is what atheism has to offer..."

There have been many evil things done in the name of religions. The question is how does one account for evil in the first place? Without God's revelation to us "evil", just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

JUSTILLTHEN: "The difference is the image worshiped, by your account, but religion the same as well as 'panacea, murder, and ruthless regimes'. Same stuff that Timmy rails at and lays at the feet of religions."

The Christian believes that God has revealed Himself to us in a number of ways, by His creation that speaks of His glory and power by what has been created, by His written Word (both in the Old and New Testaments), by His Son who is able to interact with humans as a human Himself and lastly by His Spirit - the Spirit of truth.

So His Word is a testament about Himself, about man, about His creation and about what He expects from His creatures, whom He made in His likeness and image.

Because of the Fall, man has decided for himself what authority he will accept, his own, and with man thinking he is autonomy has come all the evils of this world. We are fallen creatures who need a Savior, someone to save us from the justice of a Judge who does not turn a blind eye to wrongful acts.

Peter,

YOU: "You assume that the Bible is not a Self revelation of God, so you use your limited knowledge as the ultimate authority in judging its truth claims"

I do not assume that it is not a self revelation of God, I assess that it is not based on it's logical fallacy for one, and the mountain of evidence that it is recycled myth. All reasonable and logical reasons to asses without prejudice, that it is not a self revelation of god.

YOU: Any worldview, to be reasonable, must offer an explanation for what is here"

Nonsense. If we don't know, we don't know. Making up an answer because you don't have one is not necessary, and therefore, not logical.

YOU: "I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Lots of logic"

Yes it is. Admitting you don't know something that you don't know is very very logical. Making up an answer because you do not have one is illogical.

YOU: I offer you the only reason that can make sense of this. You offer "I don't know."

You do not offer "the only reason that can make sense of this" because the reason you offer is a logical fallacy that can not make any sense of this, so how can it be the only reason that makes sense when it doesn't make sense?

YOU: You are the one who is telling me what cannot be so by the Christian God. Is it not reasonable to offer your logic for why it can't be?

I have. Logical fallacy. Plus mountains of evidence showing it to be a recycled myth from our primitive past.

YOU: "You don't leave it open, you limit it just as I do.

Not true.

YOU: "Your limit does not include the Christian God"

It did, until your story was assessed to be a logical fallacy.

YOU: You look at the evidence and deny it. But you are not neutral in your beliefs. You are biased

There is no evidence. I am not Biased. There just is no evidence for. And a mountain of evidence against. And to top it all off, the whole premise is a logical fallacy.

YOU: Sure you do. You believe that the Christian God is not the cause. That is a belief.

That is a belief, you are correct. But it is not a belief about how the universe got here. That it what I do not form a belief about due to lack of evidence.

However I have many beliefs about how it did not get here.
I have already stated a million times my evidence and reason and logic for my belief that our universe was not created by the Christian God.

Timmy 2 Huff 0

Sorry Justillthen, I will continue on with your post questions if you like? However I am working the next couple of days and may not have time to respond until Friday. If you do not want to continue, best wishes! Sorry for not responding quicker. I did get carried away with Timmy.

ME: "Are you being absolute in your assessment Timmy, for if you are you are again being inconsistent"

TIMMY: "Not absolute. Logical. No one has been able to present an absolute objective authority that holds up to evidence, logic or reason, so it is logical, and reasonable to assess that we currently do not have such a thing. Because we don't."

You assume that the Bible is not a Self revelation of God, so you use your limited knowledge as the ultimate authority in judging its truth claims. Because you do not recognize the Bible as such evidence you continue to assert that it is not what it claims to be - the Word of God. It has many factual evidences to it, for it is a written history of God's interaction with man.

TIMMY: "I don't have to make sense of it because my world view doesn't pretend to be able to make sense of it. But yours does. So the burden is on you to make sense of it. And your explanation is a logical fallacy."

Any worldview, to be reasonable, must offer an explanation for what is here, how you know and what difference it makes. Otherwise how can it be logical? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Lots of logic.

ME: "You keep telling me that God is not the explanation and yet you can offer nothing that can make sense of anything. Great contribution!"

TIMMY: "Neither can you. Great contribution!"

I offer you the only reason that can make sense of this. You offer "I don't know."

ME: "So you then believe that this universe has plan, purpose and reason and is not here by Chance"

TIMMY: "No. I don't have to believe any of the possibilities, Peter."

What are the options that this universe is here? Chance or intent? Do you have another option? You are the one who is telling me what cannot be so by the Christian God. Is it not reasonable to offer your logic for why it can't be?

TIMMY: "There is no evidence to support any conclusion on the matter, so I leave it open and explore it with reason and logic. This is the only honest thing to do in the absence of evidence."

You don't leave it open, you limit it just as I do. Your limit does not include the Christian God. You look at the evidence and deny it. But you are not neutral in your beliefs. You are biased.

ME: "Where is the logic and reason in that? What scientific evidence do you have other than scientific speculation?"

TIMMY: "There is none. That is why I do not form a belief about it."

Sure you do. You believe that the Christian God is not the cause. That is a belief.

Justilthen said:

"Religions that espouse absolutist dogma are murderous and evil. Can't say it more clear. When we say Only Way we open the door to destruction and death and darkness"

The world's tow most dominant religions, both of which you defend as "maybe being on to something" do exactly what you point out above. Absolutist dogma. And only one path to salvation.

And yet you will not condemn these religions that you just said yourself "open the door to destruction and death and darkness"

Justilthen said: "God is Creator of All"

Sounds pretty absolutist to me. A statement with no evidence, logic or reason to it, stated as fact. Lunacy. Delusion.

peterhuff,

Past my last post I am not going to continue or eloborate further on your statements as you are just using me as an avenue to attack Timmy and what he represents to you.
Examples:

"If like Timmy asserts, the universe has always been or life has always been..."

"How can Timmy logically discount the God of the Bible on his infantile knowledge of this universe? How can he reason that God most probably does not exist on the minute knowledge that he or any other man possesses of this universe?"

"Where is the evidence that Timmy says of life (other than God) always being here?"

"What is this life form that Timmy speaks of as a possibility and what evidence does he have to present to us other than his ASSumptions?"

"Which scientist can Timmy point to as the authority and knowledge to say with certainty this IS the way it is, Carl Sagan?"

"Where does intelligence come from other than God Timmy, from blind Chance?"

"For Timmy I would ask him why he feels he is able to account for reason and logic in a Chance universe?"

Whoops, peter. Boring to me.
I am not timmy, thank God. Do not use me as an avenue whose purpose is to attack your real intent but just from a different angle. Be honest, please.

Timmy is a perfect backboard for you and I encourage you to just continue going straight at him. He loves it, and you do too I am sure.

I am not interested.

I get that way. Ask your friend timmy. I have little interest in those games.

go in peace.
Justin

Peter,

YOU: "What gives the life form the intent to reproduce?"

I don't know and neither do you.

Peter,

YOU: You keep telling me that you "do not know" when I ask you a question. Where is the reasoning power in "I don't know?"

It is reasonable that one not make up answers to questions they do not know the answer to. So when faced with a question for which one does not have the answer, the reasoned thing to do is to be honest and say "I don't know"

There is the reasoning power in that.
Shocking that you need it spelled out for you. You really are at an 8 year old level as Frederick pointed out.

YOU: "Your worldview is conveniently illusive"

It only seems that way to you because you are hung up on the idea that one has to form a belief one way or another about things unanswered, as opposed to the more honest approach of being open minded about all of the possibilities and examining each of them scientifically, logically and with reason.

YOU: Explain it to me and the reason it is as you say it is

I don't say that it is anything. I say "I don't know how"

You are the only one between us who is saying that it is as you say it is. So it is you who has to answer your own question that you just put to me. "Explain it to me and the reason it is as you say it is"

You can not explain the reason. Because there is no reason to what you say about it.

YOU: Define your terms. State what you believe.

This is your problem. You need me to be a theist like you or you can not argue with me. I do not believe anything about how the universe got here or how life started if it started at all. I have absolutely no beliefs about those things. Just possibilities and probabilities. All options are on the table until discredited as yours has been.

YOU: In this forum you have make assertions, nothing else.

The only assertion I have made is that beliefs should be formed with evidence, reason or logic. I stand by that assertion. All other assertions have been yours.

Hello Peterhuff,

JUSTILLTHEN on Timmy: "All this I have said to you, and in the end feel that it was a relatively flaccid experience. All I got from you was combativeness and arrogance, and left feeling less optimistic with the world. That was your effect on me. So I have ended any ongoing discourse with you.

I just read your posts and have some issues.
First I am happy that you have the beliefs that you do and I am not about changing them or negating them, as I have said. They are contrary beliefs to mine in many ways.
But I do not find much difference between your accusation of atheism and what Timmy, as one, accuses christianity of. Your qsuote:

"This is what atheism has to offer all the time proclaiming it is the panacea for all the worlds problems. Just take a look at its track record in the twentieth century when it came into its own - an estimated 100 million plus murdered by these ruthless regimes that see "good" in their own eyes. This is the type of world that is a possibility with atheism as its religion,..."

The difference is the image worshiped, by your account, but religion the same as well as 'panacea, murder, and ruthless regimes'. Same stuff that Timmy rails at and lays at the feet of religions.

I essentially agree here, Peter. Religions that espouse absolutist dogma are murderous and evil. Can't say it more clear. When we say Only Way we open the door to destruction and death and darkness.

God is Creator of All. No one, no religion, no culture or society, Owns Him. Her. It. If you insist on Ownership you buy into darkness. Boom. End of story.
All your dogma is meaningless to me in this moment. Please contemplate honestly these concepts. Exclusivity in God amounts to darkness in the human sphere.

Timmy,

ME: "Certain traits or characteristics of individuals are selected over other traits or characters of individuals to promote survival of the fittest"

TIMMY: "No. That is not how natural selection works. You clearly do not understand anything about it. The above sentence is ignorant, plain and simple. You need to stop talking about natural selection because you don't know what you are talking about.

Either natural selection is random chance, it just happens and with no reason or order, because Chance is not uniform, or there is intent behind it. Random chance does not select anything and only a mind has intent. Can you give a further explanation?

You state that "Helpful mutations get passed on because they help a life form reproduce. There is no mind doing the selecting. The thing doing the selecting is the absence of premature death. No mind necessary"

What gives the life form the intent to reproduce? It just happens? If it just happens why should it continue to happen?

Peter,

YOU: Are you being absolute in your assessment Timmy, for if you are you are again being inconsistent

Not absolute. Logical. No one has been able to present an absolute objective authority that holds up to evidence, logic or reason, so it is logical, and reasonable to assess that we currently do not have such a thing. Because we don't.

YOU: There again, without God you can't make sense of it

There again you state the obvious, that which we have covered many many times before. I don't have to make sense of it because my world view doesn't pretend to be able to make sense of it. But yours does. So the burden is on you to make sense of it. And your explanation is a logical fallacy.

YOU: You keep telling me that God is not the explanation and yet you can offer nothing that can make sense of anything. Great contribution!

Neither can you. Great contribution!

YOU: You are just here to deny, for as the Bible says, one day you will have to give an account to Him but you don't want to admit to this fact

I'm shakin in my boots.
lol

YOU: "So you then believe that this universe has plan, purpose and reason and is not here by Chance"

No. I don't have to believe any of the possibilities, Peter.
There is no evidence to support any conclusion on the matter, so I leave it open and explore it with reason and logic. This is the only honest thing to do in the absence of evidence.

YOU: That sure seems to me to destroy the popular evolutionary view

I repeat. You do not understand evolution enough to discuss it.

YOU: You have still not given any evidence for "always been" just naked assertion.

I have not asserted it. Here you lie about me as usual.

YOU: Where is the logic and reason in that? What scientific evidence do you have other than scientific speculation?"

There is none. That is why I do not form a belief about it.
Forming beliefs about things with no evidence reason or logic is your gig, not mine.

It is you who needs evidence, not me.

Hi Timmy,

YOU: "And you are not. Why is your view the correct view? Because you say so?"

TIMMY: "Because it is rational and yours is not. You have not been able to poke a hole in my worldview."

You don't see it that way because you are living it. You keep telling me that you "do not know" when I ask you a question. Where is the reasoning power in "I don't know?"

Your worldview is conveniently illusive, that is for certain. Explain it to me and the reason it is as you say it is.

TIMMY: "99.99% of your argument is against someone else's world view. All of your posts begin with you stating a lie about what I believe, and then arguing at length with that. It's all worthless babble in a debate against me."

Define your terms. State what you believe. If you already have forgive me for the Sam Harris forum was a long time ago and I do not remember everything you said. In this forum you have make assertions, nothing else.

ME: "Oh yeah, you are not brainwashed for you are totally objective and rationally fair in all your assessments, neutral in every aspect, impartial to the influence of anyone without the "logic or reason" that comes from your own worldview"

TIMMY: "Yes."

Right Timmy, your statement is obvious for what it is, pure malarkey old buddy.

Hello again Timmy,

ME: "If you have no ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation all you have is speculation."

This is just a statement of how things are. Not evidence that your God exists. We do have no "ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation" because yours is a logical fallacy, as are all of the other proposed "ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation"s."

Are you being absolute in your assessment Timmy, for if you are you are again being inconsistent. We have at least your absolute, objective, authority and revelation so there is one after all! You are stating by authority that there is at least one. If you are not being absolute then you don't know, you are just speculating.

ME: Random Chance explains nothing, it is not logical, it does not reason, it is not intelligent, it is not personal. Where does intelligence come from other than God Timmy, from blind Chance?"

TIMMY: "I don't know and neither do you. Probably not blind chance."

There again, without God you can't make sense of it. You keep telling me that God is not the explanation and yet you can offer nothing that can make sense of anything. Great contribution! You are just here to deny, for as the Bible says, one day you will have to give an account to Him but you don't want to admit to this fact.

ME: "For Timmy I would ask him why he feels he is able to account for reason and logic in a Chance universe?"

TIMMY: "I don't have to account for that because as usual, you are arguing with someone else's world view not mine."

So you then believe that this universe has plan, purpose and reason and is not here by Chance. That sure seems to me to destroy the popular evolutionary view.

TIMMY: "We've been through this but you are so annoying you repeat old news over and over again wasting time and bandwidth. There are two options. Always been (like your illogical God) or creative source, (which immediately falls into infinite regression)"

You have still not given any evidence for "always been" just naked assertion. Where is the logic and reason in that? What scientific evidence do you have other than scientific speculation?

Men created a figure or figures named god or gods, understandable because of the huge uncertainties as to the existence of the universe, including ourselves. In other word, the principle "god" is a proxy concept for (unavoidable) human ignorance (blatant example: The "firmament"!).

When the Christian brand (also the other ones) was originally created, it corresponded exactly to the given status of knowledge or the lack thereof at that time. The clergy in power "forgetting" to update it, as knowledge gradually increases, it becomes more and more strange, dependent on stretching and bending superstition in all directions. The power over people increased proportionally to its absurdities ("believe" or go to hell!).

The difference between the religions and the Santa Claus narrative is, that in Santa Claus everybody gets "enlightened" and laughs about it around the age of 8 at the latest, in the rest of religion the infantile assumptions remain established. Let's not forget that Santa Claus was and even IS a "real" (lol) Saint in the Christian dogma! So PH is on a level of insight below the age of 8, irrespective of the amount of far fetched pseudo-arguments at his disposal.

Once you create such an entity, you can dub it Almighty, All knowing, anything including the contrary of anything (God is "love", god is "the sword" etc.). There is no limit of properties you can attribute to a fictional meme you created yourself, be it god, Allah, Spaghetti monster, Zeus, Thor or whatever you prefer.

Peter:

YOU: "And you are not. Why is your view the correct view? Because you say so?"

Because it is rational and yours is not. You have not been able to poke a hole in my worldview. 99.99% of your argument is against someone else's world view. All of your posts begin with you stating a lie about what I believe, and then arguing at length with that. It's all worthless babble in a debate against me.

YOU: "Oh yeah, you are not brainwashed for you are totally objective and rationally fair in all your assessments, neutral in every aspect, impartial to the influence of anyone without the "logic or reason" that comes from your own worldview"

Yes.

Peter:

YOU: "Certain traits or characteristics of individuals are selected over other traits or characters of individuals to promote survival of the fittest"

No. That is not how natural selection works. You clearly do not understand anything about it. The above sentence is ignorant, plain and simple. You need to stop talking about natural selection because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hi Timmy,

timmy2 Author Profile Page:

ME: "This is what atheism has to offer all the time proclaiming it is the panacea for all the worlds problems"

TIMMY: "Atheism is your word. It's not really a thing. Your thing doesn't exist so there is nothing to oppose.

No, it is not "my" word. It is a word that is used to describe a person who does not believe in theism - a deity. You atheists are the ones who are trying to change the definition from its original intent.

ME: "Just take a look at its track record in the twentieth century when it came into its own - an estimated 100 million plus murdered by these ruthless regimes that see "good" in their own eyes. This is the type of world that is a possibility with atheism as its religion, with man as his own god"

TIMMY: "Like I said. Atheism is not a thing."

It is a concept that describes one who does not believe in theism.

TIMMY: "Those regimes were religions themselves. Dictators are playing God on earth. Gee where'd they get that idea, and a populous prone to such a meme? So blind. Unbelievably blinded by the spell."

And you are not. Why is your view the correct view? Because you say so?

ME: "Timmy's way is the way that atheistic fundamentalists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens attack the Christian theology and worldview.... (TIMMY: "possibly. I
just call it good old fashioned brainwashing")

Oh yeah, you are not brainwashed for you are totally objective and rationally fair in all your assessments, neutral in every aspect, impartial to the influence of anyone without the "logic or reason" that comes from your own worldview. Sure Timmy!

Peter,

YOU: If like Timmy asserts, the universe has always been or life has always been

BS BS BS. Timmy does not assert this, but Peter fails miserably when arguing with Timmy's actual worldview so he must continually, and annoyingly, argue with someone else's world view and pretend it's Timmy's.

Here are some rantings of an irrational loon: "he fails to recognize that the Life that always existed is God, and not just any god, but a God who has created man in His image and likeness so that man is able to use reason and use logic as God does, but there again not correctly unless he thinks God's thoughts after Him. "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, "for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are [His] ways higher than our ways." (Isaiah 55:8)"

YOU: "Is it logical to discount God as the logical necessity for life, the universe, logic and reason?"

Correction. It is not logical to discount a creative source, that is why I do not discount one. I am logical.

It is also not logical to think that the logical fallacy in the Bible called God is the creative source, if one exists.

YOU: How can Timmy logically discount the God of the Bible on his infantile knowledge of this universe?

I can do so based on the logical fallacy of it alone. But there is also a mountain of evidence that it is all recycled myth from our primitive human past. But the logical fallacy works fine on it's own.

YOU: Where is the evidence that Timmy says of life (other than God) always being here?

More lies from Peter. Timmy has never claimed evidence of life always being here. Peter can not argue with Timmy's world view. He must argue with others and pretend it's Timmy's. It's getting beyond pathetic. Lying. Devious. A cancer to reasonable debate. A distraction from a bankrupt world view.

YOU: Where is the evidence that this universe is eternal? These are wild and woolly assumptions for our friend to make"

I do not assume any of those things. ONly that your God does not exist. And I assume that due to the logical fallacy of it.

YOU: Which scientist can Timmy point to as the authority and knowledge to say with certainty this IS the way it is, Carl Sagan? Which scientist is his final court of appeal? Surely and logically and reasonably he must have some evidence, some authority in these claims of his if it is reasonable and logical to say that what he believes is true?

More pathetic arguing with someone else's worldview and attributing it to Timmy, due to inability to argue with Timmy's actual world view.

Timmy 2 Huff 0

Good early morning Timmy,

ME: "When talking about origins why should anything select anything else without intent?

TIMMY: "I have never said that anything selects anything. In natural selection, nothing is selecting anything. The word "selection" is throwing you. You sound really really dumb not understanding that nothing is selecting anything in natural selection."

How can nothing select anything? (Yeah, I know what you mean, that nothing is being selected, just liked that way the statement read about being really dumb not understanding that nothing is selecting anything)

Certain traits or characteristics of individuals are selected over other traits or characters of individuals to promote survival of the fittest. If you and evolutionary science are saying is that this is all happening by Chance, then how does Chance determine/select anything? Natural selection then becomes a misnomer. Why would a certain trait survive in a Chance universe? Why would any one characteristic or trait be desirable for survival in a Chance world? A Chance world is just that - Chance. There is no rhyme or reason to Chance, it just happens. Everything is possible but nothing is probable. So why "should" anything survive or want to survive in a Chance world?

ME: "How does something that does not think naturally select? Selection has intent. Minds have intent."

TIMMY: You can not be that dumb. You know that nothing "selects" in natural selection. Helpful mutations get passed on because they help a life form reproduce. There is no mind doing the selecting. The thing doing the selecting is the absence of premature death. No mind necessary."

That’s just my point Timmy. If something that does not think, has no mind, does not select then how does it decide what is the fittest mutation? Chance determines nothing. How does something "know" that it is helpful? Your answer and the answer of evolution is because it continues to survives. My point in a random Chance universe is why "should" anything desire to survive? Why should anything seek life, meaning and purpose in that it desires to survive? What is the cause of its desire to survive? What gives it that intent to survive?

ME: "No, without God there is no explanation that makes sense"

TIMMY: "God does not make sense either."

I did not know you knew God enough to make that distinction, that He does not make sense?

Peter:

YOU: "If you have no ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation all you have is speculation.

This is just a statement of how things are. Not evidence that your God exists. We do have no "ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation" because yours is a logical fallacy, as are all of the other proposed "ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation"s.

YOU: Random Chance explains nothing, it is not logical, it does not reason, it is not intelligent, it is not personal. Where does intelligence come from other than God Timmy, from blind Chance?"

I don't know and neither do you. Probably not blind chance.

YOU: For Timmy I would ask him why he feels he is able to account for reason and logic in a Chance universe?

I don't have to account for that because as usual, you are arguing with someone else's world view not mine.

YOU: Maybe he has an alternative explanation for the universe other than Chance?

We've been through this but you are so annoying you repeat old news over and over again wasting time and bandwidth. There are two options. Always been (like your illogical God) or creative source, (which immediately falls into infinite regression)

One thing we know for sure though, is that your particular proposed God is a logical fallacy.

Peter,

YOU: This is what atheism has to offer all the time proclaiming it is the panacea for all the worlds problems"

Atheism is your word. It's not really a thing. Your thing doesn't exist so there is nothing to oppose. I consider myself a rationalist, and you an A-rationalist. There is zero rationality to your world view.

YOU: Just take a look at its track record in the twentieth century when it came into its own - an estimated 100 million plus murdered by these ruthless regimes that see "good" in their own eyes. This is the type of world that is a possibility with atheism as its religion, with man as his own god

Like I said. Atheism is not a thing. Those regimes were religions themselves. Dictators are playing God on earth. Gee where'd they get that idea, and a populous prone to such a meme? So blind. Unbelievably blinded by the spell.

YOU: (with my words in parenthesis)
Timmy's way is the way that atheistic fundamentalists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens attack the Christian theology and worldview so as to misconstrue and overstate Christians as science haters, (only the ones who are) tribal, (yes) evil, (not the followers but the roman inventors) infantile, (yes) irrational, (by definition) possessing a belief that is just a meme, (possibly, certainly irrational) passed on from brain to brain in the evolutionary theory and scheme of things. (possibly. I just call it good old fashioned brainwashing)

YOU: the new breed of atheist must, MUST, show Christianity in particular and religion in general as delusional and in error. It is power politics at its best.

It is delusional, and in error. Peters rantings are just the noises enlightenment makes. It's a steam train, Peter. The days of superstition will be stomped out by the internet. This very device we are making use of right now.

Justilthen said:

"There are many closed hearts and minds and that is the way of some people in the world"

I love it. That's what it is. it's a closed heart. It's not sense and reason. Those things only close your heart. That is why you must let loose of those things to receive God into your heart.

It's not intellectual honesty. It's just a bunch of closed hearts.

Ah, such is the religionist.
"You need to open your heart to the spaghetti monster and believe without evidence in the spaghetti monster or he won't show himself to you"

Those atheists and their closed hearts

lol

My beliefs aren't irrational. You just have a closed heart you big meanie.

Too rich.

Finally Justillthen,

If like Timmy asserts, the universe has always been or life has always been, which he has been hinting at but without any certainty or conclusive evidence, or any evidence for that matter from his part (the first premise I would disagree with. In the second he is walking along the same path that I am but he fails to recognize that the Life that always existed is God, and not just any god, but a God who has created man in His image and likeness so that man is able to use reason and use logic as God does, but there again not correctly unless he thinks God's thoughts after Him)

God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, "for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are [His] ways higher than our ways." (Isaiah 55:8)

Is it logical to discount God as the logical necessity for life, the universe, logic and reason? How can Timmy logically discount the God of the Bible on his infantile knowledge of this universe? How can he reason that God most probably does not exist on the minute knowledge that he or any other man possesses of this universe? It is obvious from all the different theories of man that he is in fact unsure of anything outside of knowledge from God.

So in order not to embarrass himself/herself totally the atheist may leave the "possibility" of God open all the while discounting this possibility? Go figure.

Where is the evidence that Timmy says of life (other than God) always being here? What is this life form that Timmy speaks of as a possibility and what evidence does he have to present to us other than his ASSumptions? Where is the evidence that this universe is eternal? These are wild and woolly assumptions for our friend to make. Hopefully he can more clearly give us the factual details in explanding his worldview?

Which scientist can Timmy point to as the authority and knowledge to say with certainty this IS the way it is, Carl Sagan? Which scientist is his final court of appeal? Surely and logically and reasonably he must have some evidence, some authority in these claims of his if it is reasonable and logical to say that what he believes is true?

I will leave it at that for now.

Continuing Justillthen,

FREDERIC2: "Timmy is of course right, when he argues about reason and truth. Truth cannot be defined by anything but evidence and reason - or it may also remain equally "truthfully" unknown or undisclosed!"

Truth can be defined as what corresponds to what is real, to reality as it really is. The problem with examining evidence is that a fact is usually interpreted and depends on a persons foundational beliefs. That is generally, if the person is being consistent to what they believe, the way the person is going to interpret the evidence.

No person sees every aspect of every fact and how it is related completely to every other fact except the God who created the facts and knows every aspect and relationship of every fact.

Thus if you have no ultimate, absolute, objective revelation of truth it becomes nothing more than a possibility or probability, which Timmy has admitted to in the past. If you have no ultimate, absolute, objective authority and revelation all you have is speculation. If you have no God as ultimate Creator, you run into a myriad of possible scenarios all based on Chance. But Chance cannot account for anything. Only a Mind, with intent and purpose can account for the universe.

Random Chance explains nothing, it is not logical, it does not reason, it is not intelligent, it is not personal. Where does intelligence come from other than God Timmy, from blind Chance?

For Timmy I would ask him why he feels he is able to account for reason and logic in a Chance universe? Maybe he has an alternative explanation for the universe other than Chance?

Hi Justillthen,

JUSTILLTHEN on Timmy: "All this I have said to you, and in the end feel that it was a relatively flaccid experience. All I got from you was combativeness and arrogance, and left feeling less optimistic with the world. That was your effect on me. So I have ended any ongoing discourse with you."

This is what atheism has to offer all the time proclaiming it is the panacea for all the worlds problems. Just take a look at its track record in the twentieth century when it came into its own - an estimated 100 million plus murdered by these ruthless regimes that see "good" in their own eyes. This is the type of world that is a possibility with atheism as its religion, with man as his own god.

Timmy's way is the way that atheistic fundamentalists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens attack the Christian theology and worldview so as to misconstrue and overstate Christians as science haters, tribal, evil, infantile, irrational, possessing a belief that is just a meme, passed on from brain to brain in the evolutionary theory and scheme of things.

The agenda of the atheist is to have his worldview as the one that dictates all other worldviews and to do so the new breed of atheist must, MUST, show Christianity in particular and religion in general as delusional and in error. It is power politics at its best.

JUSTILLTHEN: "I do not believe in blind combativeness, nor in allegience solely to some version of logic and rationality."

To explain logic and rationality as Frederic2 did and Timmy wholeheartedly agrees has its problems.

Hello ThomasBaum,

I appreciate what you have said and where you come from. I like your heart and your belief in what you feel called to do, and I know that it sometimes it may not be easy. There are many closed hearts and minds and that is the way of some people in the world. We have somewhat different views, but who does not. You seem to treat people with respect, and you believe in what you stand for without insult.
I wish you well.
Peace.
Justin

Thomas,

"Man is very inventive, he can find plenty of excuses for his actions"

Yes. Like inventing a God to fight over. Now you're getting it.

"See you and the REST OF HUMANITY in the Kingdom"

We're in it right now. Live for today. Life ends at death.

Take care.

Be ready. For that thing that is never going to happen because it is a myth.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "You keep your faith in God.".

I will, even tho it has moved past faith since God has revealed to me that God is a Trinity and Is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

I will keep my faith in God's Plan and that God's Plan will come to Fruition.

You also wrote, "I'll keep my faith in humanity. The only thing making us all act goofy right now is religion."

Man is very inventive, he can find plenty of excuses for his actions.

See you and the REST OF HUMANITY in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas,

You ask: "Does your world view allow people as part of the equation of your world view?"

Of course. What a ridiculous question. Do you have a point?
Too pessimistic about human nature to see it happening are ya?
Nice faith you got there.

You keep your faith in God. (who does not exist)

I'll keep my faith in humanity. The only thing making us all act goofy right now is religion.

Take care,

Be ready, for that thing that is never going to happen because it's a myth.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Hitler was also a dictator. My world view doesn't allow for such things to occur. No religion, no countries, no religion infected countries for dictators to take over. Just one human society and culture, acting as stewards to maintain a sustainable environment."

Question: Does your world view allow people as part of the equation of your world view?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PERSIFLAGE

You're right.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Peter,

YOU: If there is no source for good then how do you measure it?

Collective reasoning in a non religious world.

YOU: If we in Canada deem same-sex marriage "good" and the USA deems it not good whose is right?

Bad example. The only reason anyone would be against gay marriage is because of religion.

YOU: "Does anyone really know for sure?" I forget who wrote those lyrics, but nothing is sure from your worldview.

Yours either. That is the point. Mine is more honest though.

Peter,

YOU: Do you think that it is possible for the sea of humanity to ever reach that consensus when they have opposite views of what good is?

They only have opposite views because of religion. People have there own subjective good for themselves, and society democratically evolves the good for the collective. With whose reason you ask. With the collective reasoning. It's that simple. That is how Canada works Peter. That is how most of the western civilized world works. The only thing mucking it up is religion.

YOU: Can two billion people who confess to being Christians be wrong?

Of course. Most of them are wrong according to you, because most of them do not see the same interpretation of the Bible as you. This proves that your objective God standard is a pipe drem based on a logical impossibility.

Peter,

YOU: Which family tribe, with society, which subjective opinion gets to determine the best? You have no answer Timmy and no reason or logic behind your philosophy.

Nonsense. I told you, there are no tribes. No one person's subjective opinion. The one human culture democratically evolved and reasoned opinion. The funny thing is you act like we have any other choice. Your God is a logical fallacy.

YOU: And who is going to determine what the "Good" is Timmy? Democracy does not determine good. Can you imagine the type of world you want to create"

That is how Canada works Peter. It works pretty good I'd say.

YOU: Look around you at the way the world works and has worked since the Fall when man tried to establish "good" without God as its basis. That is the basis for all wars and wrongful actions.

The fall is a myth that never happened. Because it it a logical fallacy.

Peter,

YOU: "So Hitler’s Germany, based on his idea of evolution of the races in which some were inferior to others gave him the right to exterminate an estimated 11 million people, six million Jews"

There was no science, evidence or reason behind what Hitler did. In fact, Hitler did what religion does, and what you do, which I am fundamentally against. Forming beliefs with no evidence, logic or reason for those beliefs.

Hitler was also a dictator. My world view doesn't allow for such things to occur. No religion, no countries, no religion infected countries for dictators to take over. Just one human society and culture, acting as stewards to maintain a sustainable environment.

YOU: "Nothing is wrong until I decide to inflict my atrocities on you, then you quickly support the Christian way of seeing things. Your worldview is so inconsistent Timmy"

Nonsense.

YOU: Only if we all think like you Timmy, and place you as our god, the only wise potentate"

Not at all. It just seems like that to you because we currently live in a world with more than half the population brainwashed into irrational beliefs. Fix that and we will all get along just fine.

Thank you Frederick,

Well said.

I'd like to add my two cents to the controversy between Timmy and Justilthen.

I am not so interested in the more or less personal reactions and vulnerabilities. Timmy is of course right, when he argues about reason and truth. Truth cannot be defined by anything but evidence and reason - or it may also remain equally "truthfully" unknown or undisclosed!

Justilthen argues on a completely different level: Of course, it is possible that myths have a social effect or "value" (one might even call it "truth", stretching the semantics a little) when it comes to create bonds within tribes or any other groups. But a myth is a tool, using fiction to stimulate fantasy and action. Action may be for better or worse.

When reading that a British teacher was fired for revealing to the class of 7 years olds that there is no Santa Claus, it comes to mind what a criminal brain washing can achieve in people who hear blatant lies as "truth" at an age when they are most impressible. So no wonder about PH's insistence on this sort of personal "truth". Basically, Santa Claus and the rest of the religions are on the same fictional level: Possibly useful myths, but blatant lies sold as truth to defenseless minds. In the Santa case the mechanism is all obvious. In the rest of religion, it is the same mechanism, only a little bit disguised.

And to the bible thumping PH: The annihilation of the Amalekites was "good" for the Jews, "bad" for the Amalekites. So there certainly is no god necessary to establish "good" or "bad", lol!!!

Hi Justillthen,

I will have to answer your posts tomorrow, the Lord willing.

Hi Timmy,

ME: Don't tell me you do not assume. Your whole worldview is based on assumptions"

TIMMY: "Assumptions based on reason and logic and evidence."

So you admit you assume. You have changed your tune Timmy from your previous statement. Let’s see how you morph through this one.

December 11, 2008 11:37 PM:

TIMMY: "We do. But somewhere along the line, something had to have always existed. It SEEMS most logical TO ME that we are living in that thing, we MAY be that thing."

ASSUMPTION

ME: There you go. Lecturing me on assuming while you do the very thing in your next breathe. Great consistency there Timmy!

TIMMY: "Nonsense. I ASSUME NOTHING."

So you have changed your tune in four notes to "assumption based on logic and reason."

TIMMY: "I stated what seems logical, all the while allowing for the very real possibility that it may not be so."

What SEEMS logical?

ASSUMPTION

Very inconsistent Timmy, just like your worldview, or what you have explained of it so far. It is not making sense to me. One minute it is one thing, the next it has changed.

"Does anyone really know for sure?" I forget who wrote those lyrics, but nothing is sure from your worldview.

Hi Timmy,

ME: Okay, then how is "good" established?

TIMMY: Objectively? It isn't. Good is never established objectively. It can not be with our current information.

Well thanks for your subjective opinion! I disagree. What you say is bad.

If there is no source for good then how do you measure it?

How can good be not good?

Where do you get the reason and logic out of this? If we in Canada deem same-sex marriage "good" and the USA deems it not good whose is right? There is no right – it is just opinion enforced by might, the might of the majority or the might of the dictator, depending on where you live, but that makes nothing good or right.

Finally Timmy,

TIMMY: "You always seem to think in terms of dictatorships. Reason my friend. Reason and logic can sort all of these things out were it not for the fact that the majority of the world were brainwashed as children to believe in a magic dictator."

Whose reason?

Okay, then reason out loud which subjective idea of good is going to be the one that we can agree on? Just because you see it one way, does that make it good? Fifty plus one percent have done a lot of bad things, but you need to establish why what fifty-one percent says necessarily makes "good" good. What are you going to do with the Christians who oppose your idea of "good", eliminate them? It could very well happen. All you need is the "right" man for the job, maybe one of your four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse.

PETER: You can't explain "good" from anything man does, for which man is your subjective standard going to come from?

TIMMY: "When we are all one human society working together for our survival and happiness, we will each have our own subjective ideas of love, happiness, good and bad, but we will have no trouble, with all of our collective minds working together, with reason free from superstition, and logic free from folklore, and science, we will have no trouble coming to a consensus as to what is good for the happiness of the whole. But only as one society. Only religion stands in the way."

Do you think that it is possible for the sea of humanity to ever reach that consensus when they have opposite views of what good is? Why in a subjective world "should" I take your ideal as "good?" What you want is a majority that sees "good" the same way you do, using your idea of reason and logic.

Can two billion people who confess to being Christians be wrong? It is the largest majority in one belief system in the world, larger than your atheist coalition. Can 1.2 billion Chinese be wrong. It is the largest national people group in the world. Can 1.1 billion Indians be wrong? They have the largest democracy in the world. Can 5-6 billion religious people be wrong? They outnumber the atheists by one massive majority? Why is it that they cannot agree on anything?

"Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying"
[ Epitaph Lyrics - King Crimson ]

I would change those lyrics slightly to read "Knowledge is a deadly friend when subjective opinion sets the rules."

Continuing Timmy,

TIMMY: "We have opened the circle of cooperation from family tribes, to groups of family tribes, to city states, to countries, to world organizations....... and now what, we stop here? Only religion stands in the way. All humanity should be living as one society, the current situation is primitive and ridiculous. Skin color and eye shape, and hair texture, and geographic location diet and clothing are not things to fight about. There should be one human culture that is an amalgamation of the best of all human wisdom. No countries. No Borders. It's a long way off. But it is inevitable and necessary for our survival and success. Imagine."

History is beset by differences of opinions. Who determines the value "best?" You throw around these words like you have a basis for them, but you have no basis for them without an absolute, objective standard. Which family tribe, with society, which subjective opinion gets to determine the best? You have no answer Timmy and no reason or logic behind your philosophy.

TIMMY: "And then, Peter, good is subjective to the individual, and reasoned democratically, logically and scientifically for the one human society."

And who is going to determine what the "Good" is Timmy? Democracy does not determine good. Can you imagine the type of world you want to create; eliminate those who oppose you until you have a consensus of 50 plus 1, providing of course that your democracy has the might to carry out its subjective view of goodness?

PETER: "So if good is just your preference verses mine then there is no good to it, its just power politics and don't call it good, call it establishing your might over the weaker.

TIMMY: "So sad that your faith has you such a pessimist and a believer in human differences rather than in our commonalities."

Look around you at the way the world works and has worked since the Fall when man tried to establish "good" without God as its basis. That is the basis for all wars and wrongful actions.

Hi Timmy - December 11, 2008 11:03 PM

PETER: If my concept is different from yours then whose is good?

TIMMY: "Yours is good for you, and mine is good for me. Reason and evidence and logic and science can help us secure a reasonable democratic idea of what is good for human society. That is the best we can do."

Best in whose subjective opinion?

So Hitler’s Germany, based on his idea of evolution of the races in which some were inferior to others gave him the right to exterminate an estimated 11 million people, six million Jews. If I was to use his logic and a whole society went along with my plan to justify exterminating millions of people – what’s wrong with that? If I see flying planes into buildings to promote the good of my people, what is wrong with that? If I choose to rape and steal and murder because I am stronger than someone else, and I abide in a totalitarian society or anarchy that serves my own purposes, what is wrong with that? Nothing if I can establish a dictatorship or majority rule that sees everything the way I deem good to be. Nothing is wrong until I decide to inflict my atrocities on you, then you quickly support the Christian way of seeing things. Your worldview is so inconsistent Timmy.

PETER: "If the society we live in is different from another, which social convention is it, whose is the good standard?"

TIMMY: "Here is where my philosophy can save us. One society of all humanity."

Only if we all think like you Timmy, and place you as our god, the only wise potentate. But in a sea of humanity where everyone sees "good" the same way, what standard will they use as the measurement, your logical and reasonable one?

Justilthen

"Timmy is a fundamentalist of his own way, and it is at odds with my view in many ways"

I am a fundamentalist in one way, And it is only at odds with your view in one fundamental way. I believe fundamentally that beliefs should be formed with evidence, logic and reason alone. Believing in something for which there is no evidence, logic and reason, is bad. It should not be condoned and protected from criticism.

All I have asked of you is to show why believing in something that has no evidence, logic or reason, somehow helps people more than simply being open minded about all of the possibilities. And if you can not show this. Then why will you not condemn all religion. Because this is what all religions do.

YOU: "I do not believe in blind combativeness, nor in allegience solely to some version of logic and rationality"

It is not "some version of logic and rationality". It is any version of logic and rationality. Those words have definitions. Religions willingly toss aside these essential tools for discovering our world. It is not my version of logic and rationality, it is everyone's version of logic and rationality. As per the definitions of those words in the dictionary.

And you have been exceptionally combative with me. I argue ideas and facts. All of your argument to me is emotional and combative, and full of personal ad hominem attack..

I didn't start this, Justilthen. I made a fair comment on the original article, and someone named Justilthen, took exception and decided to challenge and attack my ideas. He has been pitifully unsuccessful, while being rude, name calling and emotional.

Justilthen,

"I also said there was much of my position that you could not hear, that you 'had an emotion in the way' of receptivity"

Nonsense. I heard and acknowledged all of your rational assessments of religion. I simply tried to point out how your rational assessments of the ills of religion, did not correlate with some of your irrational one's. i.e. insinuating that Christianity could be true. And the people who wrote the Bible "may have been on t something".

YOU: "I have never proposed a One Path to God belief system, religion or philosophy"

I didn't accuse you of proposing one, only of defending one.

YOU: "I used the word God, which you cannot hear without your hairs fraying"

Nonsense. I use that word all the time. It is a fantastic metaphor. It is mythology. To believe it to be true is irrational. Condoning such irrational beliefs is enabling of something bad for society. religions compound the problem of irrational beliefs, by codifying them, and mainstreamizing them.

YOU: "I have declined to condemn religions altogether, as you do. I find there is much good that come out of them"

You have been unable to show any good that comes from the only portion of religion I have a problem with. That is the portion where they believe it to be true as opposed to a myth. You will not condemn "believing myth to be true", I do. It is a bad thing and you can counter my point here with argument, or you can pitch a hissy fit because I sound so smug that I am right about this.

YOU: "The concept of One True Way has collided with other True Ways to massive bloodshed and pain. That does not negate that good also exists in those Paths"

What good??????

Thomas Baum - you said, 'God created absolutely everything out of nothing' and with that I can agree. The devil is in the details......

best regards -

PERSIFLAGE

You wrote, "So then, did God truly create each man (soul) out of nothing at a particular moment in time, only to live one life and die one death after a mere second or two of cosmic time?"

God created absolutely everything out of nothing.

God also created time. Lots of people talk about the end of time, but time does not end.

Talking about the end times and the end of the age is not the same thing as the end of time.

The way that I look at the week of creation is that each of the first five days lasted, who knows how long, I don't. We have been in the sixth day since man has been man and night is coming.

Jesus said, "My Father has been busy even until now", it says in the bible that on the seventh day, "God Blest, Rested and Made Holy". The seventh day is not yet here but it shall come and with it "the new heavens and the new earth".

When I make the statement: "God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof", it is very simple and to the point. Some people seem to be of the opinion that if they know God's Name than they are "in like Flynt", so to speak, well God does not look at your belief's, He looks at you.

In other words, if someone believes in God, what do they do with that belief?

We are responsible for our actions and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

God has a Plan and His Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in The Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, the complete renewal of ALL CREATION.

As far as dualism, which is the existence of good and evil in this world as far as I know, to me it seems obvious that there is good and evil, right and wrong not necessarily to be confused with legal and illegal.

I have done things that I know and knew were wrong, I can't and won't speak for anyone else but I know that I have done things that were wrong.

I look at it as at death, physical death, we go into eternity and if we happen to wake up in hell, so to speak, when we realize that we built it ourself that will make it even worse.

Hell is not the monolithic place that some seem to think that it is by is custom built by the occupant.

Spiritual death is also a possibility and even tho it is totally different from hell, it is horrible.

Jesus won the keys to both and He will use them in due time and if you think about it, this is not even what some "Christians" believe and sad to say it is not even close to what some "Christians" want.

The 'good enough news' which is how I phrase the 'as long as I get to the good place' mentality of some, is horrific news, it is not good enough and it definitely is not good news.

God came up with His Plan before He created anything in the spiritual or material world and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum - well, you know by now that I'm a perpetual student of religion, and actually there is no 'new age' thinking that I'm aware of in Vedanta. Instead, it's distant origins seem to go back over 4000 years, well beyond the Upanishads themselves. Of course, new agists have co-opted much to be found in religious metaphysics, but that was not my intention here.

My goal was to compare your reported religious experiences, which seem firmly grounded along classic Catholic theological/doctrinal lines, with a different kind of religious understanding (of mystical experiences).

The problem that messages and messengers of the religious persuasion face is the solitary nature of religious experience. What can it possibly mean to other people, absent the feelings of the actual experience itself?

On the other hand, we do our best to convey and describe our experiences through common symbology in spite of the difficulties.

Two things we can say about religion: they typically support either a dualist or monist view of reality - and secondly, the doctrines of said religions are founded and then supported on the basis of mystical and esoteric experiences of both religious founders and select members of the religious faithful through the ages (e.g. mystics, saints, arhats, siddhas, enlightened gurus and magisters of the arcane arts, and so forth).

Returning to my original point, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are dualist in nature, while Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are monist.

On the other hand, the mystical Kaballah of Judaism has more in common with Vedanta than it does with Christianity - in my opinion.

So then, did God truly create each man (soul) out of nothing at a particular moment in time, only to live one life and die one death after a mere second or two of cosmic time? At least your cosmology has a happier destiny in store for humans than most Christian believers that roll the dice - and that is not a small thing by any means.

Or is our history as 'individuals' something vastly more complex and perhaps infinitely older in nature? I think we have to ask these questions - because life is short, and eternity is very long indeed.

Bede Griffiths, a well known modern-day Catholic contemplative found considerable value in the Hindu religious view - see below. Please do read through the material on Vedanta for a much more complete explanation of this view.

best regards -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_Griffiths

timmy2:

Justilthen said:

"Those adherents would certainly believe that we have not accepted Gods revelation, as they believe. And so the reasons for untold pain for humanity..."

"I am not a proponent for "one true way to God". Indeed I believe that this delusion is one of the primary reasons for pain in this world"

"Justilthen is now saying what Timmy says."

Several things, Timmy. Short.
The statement of mine that you quoted I have said throughout these boards in various ways. I have said it to you. I also said there was much of my position that you could not hear, that you 'had an emotion in the way' of receptivity. I have never proposed a One Path to God belief system, religion or philosophy. I used the word God, which you cannot hear without your hairs fraying. I have declined to condemn religions altogether, as you do. I find there is much good that come out of them.
There is much darkness too, as I said to you in one of my wasted interactions with you.
The concept of One True Way has collided with other True Ways to massive bloodshed and pain. That does not negate that good also exists in those Paths.

All this I have said to you, and in the end feel that it was a relatively flaccid experience. All I got from you was combativeness and arrogance, and left feeling less optimistic with the world. That was your effect on me. So I have ended any ongoing discourse with you.

Perhaps Peter will be more compelling. Or not. I don't know.

I am not saying what Timmy says. Timmy is a fundamentalist of his own way, and it is at odds with my view in many ways. I do not believe in blind combativeness, nor in allegience solely to some version of logic and rationality.

peace out

Justilthen said:

"Those adherents would certainly believe that we have not accepted Gods revelation, as they believe. And so the reasons for untold pain for humanity..."

"I am not a proponent for "one true way to God". Indeed I believe that this delusion is one of the primary reasons for pain in this world"

Justilthen is now saying what Timmy says.

Spirituality (open minded wonder) Good
religion (one true way to God) Bad

peace

PERSIFLAGE

I read your post of 12-14-8 at 5:14PM and if I understand what you wrote, then you and I can not be trying to communicate thru these computers because you are me and I am you and for that matter nothing is real anyway, is this what you wrote means?

If this is what you wrote means and this is what you believe than that is fine, but I happen to believe that reality really is real.

When God the Father came into my heart, it was not me and when I am trying to converse with you on this site, you are not me.

I suppose you know what I have been saying but if not I will repeat it: God created everything except Himself and God is a Trinity, God even created Jesus while at the same time, Jesus Is also God. How God did this, I do not know and for that matter how God created everything out of nothing, I do not know that either.

I don't think of Jesus as a Fusion of God and Man but as God actually becoming One of Us, totally, as in Jesus being as completely human as you or me or any other human being that has ever been, is or will be.

I also believe that God-Incarnate gave up His Omni's, as in Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience but kept His Very Being, LOVE.

Is what you wrote, Buddhism, or does it have a bit of "New Age" thrown in too?

When God the Father came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, I had a point of reference in knowing what was going on.

I knew it was God the Father, how, I don't know, I just knew: I knew it was the Holy Spirit, how, I don't know, I just knew.

Also, as I have said before, even tho Jesus, God-Incarnate, was a Male, God is neither a He, a She or an It but is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and a Trinity.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Peter,

I look to respond to the second part of your post a bit later.

Peace.

Peterhuff,

"4. It is not true that God is all things, that is pantheism."

This is of the essential christianity that I was raised in that God is all things, and in all things, created them and is within them. And it makes good logical sense, (you being a proponent of God=logical as you have said). We, children of God, created by God the Father, are a part of and technically a descendant of the Father. We are made in His Image, (whatever that may be interpreted to mean). All of creation is made from the Word.
Pantheism, if you like. Whatever.
If you believe in a God that created us and all things then it follows that all are of him and he is in us, as our fathers are in us.
5. I can't be a personal being and at the same time a lifeless object. I can't say that there is only one true way to God and at the same time that there are many ways to God. How can there be only one way if there are many?

I am not a proponent for "one true way to God". Indeed I believe that this delusion is one of the primary reasons for pain in this world. I believe every single individual soul has a unique and personal path to return to their creator and the assumption that they must follow any proscribed path to realize that reunion is not only presumptuous but is arrogant and essentially governed by what you define as the Devil... That being that which keeps us in ignorance and illusion and fallen.
Whatever it is that brings an individual closer to their maker is more important BY FAR than the presumptions of any religious dogma or convention. Think about it. On the one side is an individual soul seeking reunion with it's creation, fulfillment of it's purpose, and wholeness. On the other is the conventional assumption that you have the proscribed pathway to realization of the soul in the word of the bible.
You may say that the Bible takes precedence over the individual souls journey. I say that the souls journey is more sacred than adherance to Biblical imperatives and directives, if they are contradictory to the souls' requirements.
I know that you cannot allow the possibility that the Bible may not be the everything for the soul, and so (perhaps) must negate what I am suggesting here. But it is my belief that the souls needs take precedence over Biblical imperatives.
There is nothing more important than the return of the soul to the maker. Sometimes, (not infrequently), human written perspectives get in the way of that journey.

hello peterhuff:

"1. If truth is in the eye of the beholder then which one?"
Each one. You believe in a personal relationship with God, yes? That makes sense, as we are all individual, and unique, and have a relationship that is personal with our Maker. How would Truth not be unique, from the perspective of the many, (us)? Your assumption is giving Truth only to the One, God. But as manifestations of God, individuated and unique, we Must carry an aspect of that Truth and have our own, limited look on it.

"Can truth be contradictory?"

As manifested and physically incarnate, I believe a definite yes. For reasons explained above.

"3. You already limit God when you do not accept who He has revealed Himself to be. You make Him everything but what He is, thus creating a god in your own mind."

I COULD say the same to you related to the many diverse ways that God has been seen to have manifest Himself in various other religious systems. Those adherents would certainly believe that we have not accepted Gods revelation, as they believe. And so the reasons for untold pain for humanity...
We all limit God, for we are limited beings, Peter. The face of God revealed in the Bible is absolutely and by definition limited. It is limited to what is 'revealed' and to the perspective and perception and preconceptions of the writers of those verses.
The assumption that the Bible is the full and pure revelation of God is fabulously naive. How in all that is true could the creator of all be contained in any one book, not to mention all books?

Peter,

YOU: How do you get consciousness from a material universe?

I don't know and neither do you.
Who says it's a material universe?

YOU: You say that it is no more than the functions of our brains responding to stimuli, of the way atoms collide

No I don't

YOU: "so what organized these atoms to collide in a certain manner to produce logical thought? If they were not organized then you have the additional problem of explaining why chance can even produce a logical thought"

No I don't have to explain anything, because once again you are arguing with someone else's world view. I understand why you do this. Mine is very hard to argue with.

YOU: No, everything behind this universe shows us a Mind, a Person, intelligence and purpose

Says you. All I see is chaos, and a universe that is 99.999% uninhabitable by humans, with no explanation. Why did God create billions of galaxies with no life?

YOU: You still need to show me why your subjective opinion is a reason and standard for a qualitative value

No I don't because I have never made that claim.

YOU: How do you get reason and logic from a material, impersonal universe?

Who said they believed that the universe was material and impersonal? Not me? Ge this through your thick head Peter, my world view does not make any claims of truth, so I do not have to explain any of these things you keep telling me I have to explain. I just have to know that reason and logic are all we have. Without them we could not function. We must trust our reason and logic, and not make up answers to questions that we can not answer with science, reason and logic. The intellectually honest thing to do, is to leave them open questions, and continue to search honestly, openly, logically and with reason for the answers.

Here are some rantings of a lunatic: Can you grab it, taste it, see it, smell it, hear it. What does logic look like? Does it taste good? What does logic sound like. Is it the sound of one had clapping?

YOU: Does it not even remotely seem like a Mind behind it all Timmy?

Only until I realize that that mind would need to be more complex than all of this and would then require a mind behind it by the very same logic. Then all of a sudden, it seems more likely that the thing that has always been, is a place, rather than a magic man with no beginning. But I don't know. And I know that you don't either. Because you have not been able to show any logical explanation. And your God story is a logical fallacy.

TIMMMY 2 HUFF 0

Peter,

YOU: You take evolution to be true based on your core beliefs

No based on evidence, reason and logic

YOU: You assume that it is possible that neither life (not including God) nor the universe had a beginning against the backdrop of what the majority today believes

The majority are uneducated in basic science. And brainwashed since childhood. It is possible. So is God. Now we have to get into reason and logic.

Peter,

YOU: Don't tell me you do not assume. Your whole worldview is based on assumptions"

Assumptions based on reason and logic and evidence.

YOU: The evidence can be approached on a number of different ways but I still maintain that without God you can't make sense of it"

I still maintain you can not make sense of it with your God.

YOU: Logically how does non-life give birth to life?

I never said it it did. As usual, you are arguing with someone else's world view, not mine.

YOU: When talking about origins why should anything select anything else without intent?

I have never said that anything selects anything. In natural selection, nothing is selecting anything. The word "selection" is throwing you. You sound really really dumb not understanding that nothing is selecting anything in natural selection.

YOU: Impersonal forces do not have intelligence or will or the power of explanation

Agreed

YOU: and yet here you and I sit, exchanging explanations for our existence

No, I do not have any explanations for our existence, so this is not an exchange of explanations. This is you trying to give an explanation that is a logical fallacy.

YOU: in what you believe is from a cold impersonal, unfeeling, unloving, amoral, chance (for it was not planned by a mind - was it?) universe?"

Wrong. I do not believe any of that.

YOU: No, without God there is no explanation that makes sense

God does not make sense either.

"What you call evidence is facts that need interpreting for they do not interpret themselves and to follow the nature of the fact, to see every aspect of it and how it is related back to origins is purely subjective"

Yes, but as long as you are using reason and logic, you can be assured that you have done all you can do to understand the facts. Reason and logic are all we have. We must trust them for they are as objective as we can get. Inventing a God who does not exist with an ultimate standard is an insane person's idea of how to achieve objectivity in a world where no such thing exists that we know of.

YOU: The only way we can have certainty is because an objective, absolute, unchanging Being has told us how it all started"

That would be one way to have an objective, but no such thing happened. I know this based on evidence, reason and logic.

Hi Timmy - December 12, 2008 4:58 AM,

TIMMY: "Consciousness and awareness are functions of the brain. Most scientists believe with certainty that when the brain ceases to function, our consciousness and awareness are no more. This seems like the most logical result from death."

Great assumption Timmy. How do you get consciousness from a material universe?

You say that it is no more that the functions of our brains responding to stimuli, of the way atoms collide, so what organized these atoms to collide in a certain manner to produce logical thought? If they were not organized then you have the additional problem of explaining why chance can even produce a logical thought. No, everything behind this universe shows us a Mind, a Person, intelligence and purpose.

If all we are is bundles of genetic material there is no such thing as good for if my genetic information causes my chemical reactions to happen in a different way than yours then don't argue that this is a good or bad thing. It just happens. You still need to show me why your subjective opinion is a reason and standard for a qualitative value.

ME: "You place yourself as the highest authority of appeal. You decide what you will count as evidence and what you will discard, making yourself the ultimate and final arbitrator in your subjective world."

TIMMY: "Rubbish. Lies. Nonsense."

Your biological bag of matter feels so, mine does not. Thanks for your preference, for that is all it is in your worldview.

ME: "That is something that you cannot argue because you do not know Him. You are stating your case through ignorance."

TIMMY: No, with sweet reason and logic

How do you get reason and logic from a material, impersonal universe? Can you grab it, taste it, see it, smell it, hear it. What does logic look like? Does it taste good? What does logic sound like. Is it the sound of one had clapping? Again you have the problem of the immaterial coming from the material, the abstract coming from the concrete, the non-physical coming from the physical, something that only an intelligent, reasoning person does coming from the impersonal, unthinking, dumb universe. Does it not even remotely seem like a Mind behind it all Timmy?

Hi Timmy,

TIMMY: "I use hypothesis to illustrate one possible answer, among many."

You take evolution to be true based on your core beliefs. Everything you do you filter through those core beliefs. Neither you nor anyone else were there when either the universe was formed or life came into existence. You assume that it is possible that neither life (not including God) nor the universe had a beginning against the backdrop of what the majority today believes.

Don't tell me you do not assume. Your whole worldview is based on assumptions. The evidence can be approached on a number of different ways but I still maintain that without God you can't make sense of it.

TIMMY: "You use hypothesis to make assumptions about how things are, not about how things might be."

You're only as good as your starting point. The choice you have made does not make sense. You go from the impersonal to the personal in making sense of conscience and your very existence. Where have you ever seen something not living give birth to life. Logically how does non-life give birth to life?

When talking about origins why should anything select anything else without intent? Impersonal forces do not have intelligence or will or the power of explanation and yet here you and I sit, exchanging explanations for our existence in what you believe is from a cold impersonal, unfeeling, unloving, amoral, chance (for it was not planned by a mind - was it?) universe?

TIMMY: "You turn your assumptions into beliefs with no evidence or logic.
I do not."

No, without God there is no explanation that makes sense. What you call evidence is facts that need interpreting for they do not interpret themselves and to follow the nature of the fact, to see every aspect of it and how it is related back to origins is purely subjective. The only way we can have certainty is because an objective, absolute, unchanging Being has told us how it all started.

Hi Timmy,

I am in the process of reading your posts since the last time we corresponded. Hold your horses buddy!

ME: "The world is definitely diverse. The One constant transcends the world. He does not change."

JUSTILLTHEN: "This response is part of my point. What we have is our world and lives. the 'created universe', to study so to better understand who and what we are."

It is not part of mine though. You are seeing/interpreting it though your eyes. I look to the God of the Bible in order to make sense of life. Looking at God's creation without His interpretation is opening up a myriad of possibility, but no certainty, as displayed by the thoughts of Timmy and his ilk.

Although we can know about God from His creation, the universe, we can only know Him personally and intimately through His written revelation of Himself, by His Spirit and by Him creating in us a new nature - one that is no longer in rebellion to Him and thinks that it knows best. (Romans 10:17; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:15-16)

JUSTILLTHEN: "You say read the Bible but it is a murky reflection, to me. Like deflected light, it is full of human clutter."

Have you read it through? Have you asked the God of Christianity (not just any god, for there is only one true God) to reveal Himself to you, are you will to repent of your autonomy and self-will, have you asked Him to be merciful to you? Or do you want to come to God on your own terms, calling the shots so that you may be thought of as sovereign and in charge of your own life?

JUSTILLTHEN: "For me it is a far purer view of truth to study what is unsullied by human hands and minds. The purity of the created universe."

The universe is no longer pure. The effects of the Fall are now at work in it. It is running down and in decay.

You would not even be able to study the universe unless you had a mind and were conscious. Do you believe the universe is such?

JUSTILLTHEN: "In that mirror there is little that is absolute, but it's diversity and changability. One truth, for example, is that all forms of life die. Do they transform? The elementals certainly do.
What of consciousness and awareness? This is where we started a dialogue.
No one knows."

Is that "no one knows" one of your few absolutes? How do you know that no one knows? Unless someone knows and that Someone has made known, there is no chance in making sense of anything about life.

Here is a link to viewing the Scriptural references provided if you are a user of Firefox.

http://www.proginosko.com/refalizer.html

Hi Justillthen - December 12, 2008 4:05 AM

ME: "The thing about truth being in the eyes of the beholder is that it cannot be lived. Truth can only be lived that is based in the absolute. Anything else is a lie.

ME: "You can't say that God is a personal being and God is not a personal being. He cannot be personal and impersonal at the same time."

JUSTILLTHEN: "I did not say this. And I am not sure what you are trying to say by saying this. But I am not looking to limit the possibilities of God. If it is true that He is all things, then He could be personal, impersonal, (the Son, the Father), one face and all faces, one message and all messages."

Some points to make:
1. If truth is in the eye of the beholder then which one? Can truth be contradictory? If you think so then try stopping at a green light or proceeding through a red one. You'll find that things need to be interpreted in a certain framework not only for things to work and be made sense of, but in the larger picture, for life to exist.
2. God is not a possibility but reality (Acts 17:23-31).
3. You already limit God when you do not accept who He has revealed Himself to be. You make Him everything but what He is, thus creating a god in your own mind.
4. It is not true that God is all things, that is pantheism. God is not a tree or an animal, for these are just parts of His creation. God is a being, not an inanimate object. The universe is not God. God transcends His creation. As a potter, you are not the pot you make.
5. I can't be a personal being and at the same time a lifeless object. I can't say that there is only one true way to God and at the same time that there are many ways to God. How can there be only one way if there are many? How can there only be one true gospel is everyone proclaims a different gospel? (2 Corinthians 11:3-5 or Galatians 1:6-11)

Thomas Baum - there is a view of God that I can accept as true on faith. That view is explicated in the Advaita Vedanta (Vedas of India) and which also gave rise to Buddhism.

This view states that Brahman is all in all....and is both the smallest of the small and the largest of the large - infinite, in other words. Brahman is manifest in living forms as Atman or the Self - this life force permeates every living thing and is what individuals take as the 'soul'.

However, this is merely Brahman (God) manifesting as the awareness (prajna), ego and self-identity in each sentient form. The entire cosmic manifestation (which occurs intermittantly without end) is a small fraction of Brahman's activity and Being.

In this way, everything in the phenomenal universe is of exactly the same nature and essence, making dualism not only a paradox but is what the Buddhists call Maya or illusion.

This of course includes the life and death of each cosmos, it's life forms, and the host of relatively real universal 'laws' that govern our corporeal existence. When we try to comprehend all of this scientifically, we reach a natural end in mathematics .... at our present level of understanding, the Planck limits of size, speed, and duration (see inflation theory, string theory, quantum gravity theory, et al for examples).

In the end, life is a phantasmagoria - merely a light show or the dance of Lila, which Brahman both creates and witnesses simultaneously - in truth, there are no real individual viewers or experiencers.

Everything we experience is of that same nature of Atman or Self - so in my view, you have communicated with yourself, every step of the way.

Mythology takes one beyond the limits of the rational, logical mind and helps one comprehend the incomprehensible - and I'm in perfect agreement that you've had a real experience. It's our understanding of your experience that differs.

best regards....

Peter,

My goodness sir, if you only have limited time, why on earth are you using it to quibble about the definition of hypothesis. Congratulations, You found a definition of the word "hypothesis" with the word assumption in it. This doesn't change one bit the real difference in your assumptions and my hypothesis.

I use hypothesis to illustrate one possible answer, among many.
You use hypothesis to make assumptions about how things are, not about how things might be.

You turn your assumptions into beliefs with no evidence or logic.
I do not.

But we digress.

You still have been unable to show any inconsistency in my world view.

You have also been unable to validate yours.

Timmy: 2 Huff: 0

PERSIFLAGE

You wrote, "Thomas Baum - many remarkable people have claimed to converse with God."

In case you think that I have conversed with God in the generally accepted way of two people having a conversation, I have never said that I have conversed with God, maybe some have misunderstood what I have written.

What I have said is that I have met God the Father, Who came into my heart, and God the Holy Spirit, Who came into my body.

God the Father did not say a word, He did not have too, God the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus but He did not use words either, somehow I knew.

I have had dreams which I know were from God in which I was told things, one of which was that only I could say it, but it was not a conversation per se, just a message to let me know that I am a messenger.

I am not saying that it was God, Himself, in the dream because I do not know but I do know that the aforementioned dream was from God

I am however saying that It Was God the Father that came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit that came into my body.

It seems to me that people trying to convert others are missing what Jesus asked us to do, Jesus asked us to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", it is God's Job, so to speak, to convert.

I do not have to believe that which I have experienced to be true, I know that it is, I have said YES and I am counting on God to see me thru.

My "job" is to speak whether or not anyone listens is up to them. One of the interesting things that I have learned over the last few years is that the word "obedience" and "to listen" come from the same root.

No one can hear unless they listen and there sure does seem to be a lot of double monologues going on in this world.

God is so much nicer, to be it mildly, than some think that God Is and so much nicer than, sad to say, some want Him to be.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Timmy,

Sorry, time is limited so I have room for only one reply tonight.

TIMMY: "Neither. A hypothesis is not an assumption. It is a hypothesis. And it is based on logic and reason. You were making assumptions about what I believe with zero evidence, logic or reason."

hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

I leave it at that.

Justilthen said:

"One truth, for example, is that all forms of life die. Do they transform? The elementals certainly do.
What of consciousness and awareness?

Consciousness and awareness are functions of the brain. Most scientists believe with certainty that when the brain ceases to function, our consciousness and awareness are no more. This seems like the most logical result from death.

Of course there is always the possibility that consciousness and awareness transcend the physical being, but this is an imagination only. There is zero evidence, or reason or logic, to indicate that they do. Thinking that they might is a stretch. Believing that they do is irrational and absurd.

"The thing about truth being in the eyes of the beholder is that it cannot be lived. Truth can only be lived that is based in the absolute. Anything else is a lie.

"You can't say that God is a personal being and God is not a personal being. He cannot be personal and impersonal at the same time."

I did not say this. And I am not sure what you are trying to say by saying this. But I am not looking to limit the possibilities of God. If it is true that He is all things, then He could be personal, impersonal, (the Son, the Father), one face and all faces, one message and all messages.

"The world is definitely diverse. The One constant transcends the world. He does not change."

This response is part of my point. What we have is our world and lives. the 'created universe', to study so to better understand who and what we are. You say read the Bible but it is a murky reflection, to me. Like deflected light, it is full of human clutter.
For me it is a far purer view of truth to study what is unsullied by human hands and minds. The purity of the created universe.
In that mirror there is little that is absolute, but it's diversity and changability. One truth, for example, is that all forms of life die. Do they transform? The elementals certainly do.
What of consciousness and awareness? This is where we started a dialogue.
No one knows.

Hello Peter,

Just to clear up my apparently missed attempt at humor, the last comes first.

"Unless THAT is where all these foolish transgender people are coming from!"

Don't follow your point here. Sorry."

A play on north/south pole and my earlier reference to the On Faith debate on Scriptural support pro or con on homosexual marriage. I would have thought that was clear. Sorry.
You need to get a little less serious, peter. To lighten up is divine. :-)

I : Regarding an absolute reality we find none here, in the temporal world... Show it to me."

Thee : "I point you to the God of the Bible."
No please, don't, like I done axe't you.

"It cannot be true for all belief systems to be absolute, because they all say different things. Many belief systems can claim an absolute standard, but each a contradictory one."

I never suggested that ANY belief systems were absolute, Peter. You misunderstand, or deflect. I said "absolute reality" in response to your interaction with fredric. I do not believe there is a belief system that presents a pure version of absolute truth. Anything that suggests that it does cannot back it up with proofs.
My point is that IN THIS TEMPORAL WORLD, there is no absolute reality of truth, so far as we have seen. Except perhaps the absolute of diversity.

PETER: What SEEMS logical? Are you assuming or do you know for certain?

Neither. A hypothesis is not an assumption. It is a hypothesis. And it is based on logic and reason. You were making assumptions about what I believe with zero evidence, logic or reason.

Peter:

PETER: You presuppose a lot of things Timmy

Nonsense, baseless accusation with no back up.

PETER: You judge the word of God rather than His Word judging you.

TIMMY: If you mean your God, I have proven that he does not exist. I can not judge a figment of your imagination, just your bad logic.

PETER: You place yourself as the highest authority of appeal. You decide what you will count as evidence and what you will discard, making yourself the ultimate and final arbitrator in your subjective world.

Rubbish. Lies. Nonsense.

PETER: I presuppose the God of the Bible because of His revelation to me and also because of the relationship He has established with me. Even though I do not see Him I know He exists. Everything around me bears witness of Him because in Him I see the light, the truth. I see the world through His wisdom when I correctly understand Him as He teaches me by His Spirit and through His Word

TIMMY: Wow, you've left sweet logic and reason behind here and flown the cuckoo's nest.

PETER: That is something that you cannot argue because you do not know Him. You are stating your case through ignorance.

TIMMY: No, with sweet reason and logic

PETER: You are trying to persuade people that do not know Him that He does not exist or, just as good, that He most probably does not exist. Are you the expert on the God you deny?

TIMMY: I'm just using reason and logic Peter, and your God fails the test.

TIMMY: 2 PETER: 0

Timmy's world view remains bullet proof
Peter's is a logical fallacy.

Timmy,

TIMMY: "Nonsense. I assumed nothing. I stated what seems logical, all the while allowing for the very real possibility that it may not be so.

What SEEMS logical? Are you assuming or do you know for certain? A possibility is clothed in assumptions, whether educated or not. The possible is what is taken for granted, for it still remains uncertain, whether based on seemingly reasonable evidence or not. A fact is shown to be true if it is understood properly.

Last post. Go well!

Peter,

You ask: "Do you see something WRONG in this? If you do then why is your standard the standard that determines "wrong?"

I do see something wrong with those two verses.
It is not my standard that determines wrong. It is society's standard, voted on democratically. Our society long ago determined that these two things are wrong. And thank god for that.

Hi Timmy,

You presuppose a lot of things Timmy. You judge the word of God rather than His Word judging you. You place yourself as the highest authority of appeal. You decide what you will count as evidence and what you will discard, making yourself the ultimate and final arbitrator in your subjective world.

I presuppose the God of the Bible because of His revelation to me and also because of the relationship He has established with me. Even though I do not see Him I know He exists. Everything around me bears witness of Him because in Him I see the light, the truth. I see the world through His wisdom when I correctly understand Him as He teaches me by His Spirit and through His Word. That is something that you cannot argue because you do not know Him. You are stating your case through ignorance. You have admitted that over and over. You are trying to persuade people that do not know Him that He does not exist or, just as good, that He most probably does not exist. Are you the expert on the God you deny?

That is always a charge I get out of the atheist. (-8
He claims through his ignorance that there is no God. Psalm 14:1.

Anyway, I will have to reply to the other comments and your latest posts later this weekend of Monday because six bells comes early.

Peter,

PETER: There are certain non-negotiable starting points that you assume. From your standpoint you assume God does not exist because you say you see no evidence for His existence

TIMMY: No sir. You assume wrong again. I do not assume that a creative source for life and the universe does not exist. This option is on the table for me. I have mountains and mountains of evidence, logic and reason why I believe that your God does not exist.

ME: "We do. But somewhere along the line, something had to have always existed. It seems most logical to me that we are living in that thing, we may be that thing."

PETER: There you go. Lecturing me on assuming while you do the very thing in your next breathe. Great consistency there Timmy!

ME: Nonsense. I assumed nothing. I stated what seems logical, all the while allowing for the very real possibility that it may not be so.

ME: "A funny thing about truth is that if it is not an absolute there is no truth to it. By this I mean that truth, to be true, can never be false wise it would not be true."

JUSTILLTHEN: "Again, here it is true that at 1am it is night, and at 1pm it is day. Unless, of course, you are at the north or south pole, and in the summer or the winter, in which case these rules do not apply."

You need to qualify a truth claim. It depends on the location and the time of year. Yet it can be true that the same location, the South Pole, has daylight both at 1AM and 1PM at a certain time of year. But that specific truth claim would not be true for the equator.

And some truth is relative to the individual in that I, Peter Huff, live at a certain place in a certain city in a certain country that is not true for anyone else, but it is true for me.

JUSTILLTHEN: "We do maintain our appointed sex upon travel there, to the best of my knowledge...
Unless THAT is where all these foolish transgender people are coming from!"

Don't follow your point here. Sorry.

Hi Justillthen,

ME: "Without an absolute standard there is no fixed measure of anything. You can only presuppose that what you believe is true, but you cannot offer anything but your preference, or the majority preference for believing so."

JUSTILLTHEN: "This is the case for most all belief systems. Yours as well, perhaps more so. Regarding an absolute reality we find none here, in the temporal world... Show it to me."

I point you to the God of the Bible. It cannot be true for all belief systems to be absolute, because they all say different things. Many belief systems can claim an absolute standard, but each a contradictory one. You can't say that God is a personal being and God is not a personal being. He cannot be personal and impersonal at the same time. You cannot say there is only one true God and there are many true gods. You can't say that Jesus Christ is God and at the same time say that He is not God. BTW, that is just one of many differences between the claims of Christianity and Islam on Jesus.

JUSTILLTHEN: "This manifest world seems almost devoid of absolutism. If there is an absolute it may be that everything is absolutely unique and individuated. Nothing is the same. Change is the only constant."

The world is definitely diverse. The One constant transcends the world. He does not change. e

JUSTILLTHEN: "Talk of absolutism I like, but we are talking about it while living in a universe whose fundamental quality is Separation as opposed to Union."

Separation came with the Fall of man. We were originally created to have union with God and in Christ we do (see the Jesus' High Priestly prayer in John 17 if you want to see my point).

ME: "So why should your standard that is constantly open for correction and modification be the one that is true?"

JUSTILLTHEN: "I would make a blind guess here and say that it is Absolutely not the only one... :-)"

Two conflicting standards cannot both be true can they, let alone both absolute? If so then drive through the next red light you see and stop at the green.

The thing about truth being in the eyes of the beholder is that it cannot be lived. Truth can only be lived that is based in the absolute. Anything else is a lie.

Peter,

PETER: How does something that does not think naturally select? Selection has intent. Minds have intent.

TIMMY: You can not be that dumb. You know that nothing "selects" in natural selection. Helpful mutations get passed on because they help a life form reproduce. There is no mind doing the selecting. The thing doing the selecting is the absence of premature death. No mind necessary.

PETER: Not illogical when all observation sees life giving birth to life and God being eternal life"

TIMMY: Don't be such an "I saw Elvis at the mall" crackpot. There is no observation of God being eternal life.

PETER: The regression stops at God as the source. The source of life is God who is eternal life"

TIMMY: This is simply the "always been" theory using the word "God" as a metaphor for "life". It works as a metaphor for the theory that life and the universe has always been. .

PETER: So you go against the popular view that life had a beginning somewhere in the "evolutionary" process

TIMMY: No. It is one of the possibilities along with creative source, and always been.

PETER: Does every effect have a cause?

TIMMY: All but the first cause I guess.

PETER: Do you believe that times goes back into the past forever, since you state that both the universe and life could be forever?

TIMMY: I don't turn "Could be"'s into beliefs. That's your gig.

Peter,

PETER: You have used the terms "good, bad, right, wrong" throughout our conversations Timmy and yet you cannot make sense of the "ought" of it.

TIMMY: Yes I can, in the philosophy that I just laid out. You don't believe in humanity. I do.

PETER: Why ought something to be good?

TIMMY: There is only subjective good. In a one society world, however, and collective good can be reasoned democratically. This is the best we can do given our lack of evidence for any true standard for good.

PETER: Now that worldview of yours seems inconsistent

TIMMY: Nope. Bullet proof.

PETER: and my claim has been all along that without Him you can't make sense of anything for He is necessary for there to be sense. You keep borrowing from the Christian position as you deny it"

TIMMY: Load of bologna

PETER: Who is making the assumption now? (ASS-U-ME) You don't know that for sure as you have previously admitted.

TIMMY: It's not an assumption that man created your God. It is historical fact. See "Council of Nicea".

PETER: I keep asking you questions and you keep saying, "I don't know." Have you ever considered that some people actually do know?

TIMMY: Not through reason and logic. This is the only way to "know" something. Otherwise we are just taking people's words for it. And that is beyond illogical. It is moronic.

PETER: God has revealed Himself Timmy.

TIMMY: Wow. What an unbelievably foul mess he's made of that. You seriously worship this screw up?

Hello Peter,

PETER: Okay, then how is "good" established?

TIMMY: Objectively? It isn't. Good is never established objectively. It can not be with our current information.

PETER: If my concept is different from yours then whose is good?

TIMMY: Yours is good for you, and mine is good for me. Reason and evidence and logic and science can help us secure a reasonable democratic idea of what is good for human society. That is the best we can do.

PETER: If the society we live in is different from another, which social convention is it, whose is the good standard?

TIMMY: Here is where my philosophy can save us. One society of all humanity. We have opened the circle of cooperation from family tribes, to groups of family tribes, to city states, to countries, to world organizations....... and now what, we stop here? Only religion stands in the way. All humanity should be living as one society, the current situation is primitive and ridiculous. Skin color and eye shape, and hair texture, and geographic location diet and clothing are not things to fight about. There should be one human culture that is an amalgamation of the best of all human wisdom. No countries. No Borders. It's a long way off. But it is inevitable and necessary for our survival and success. Imagine.

And then, Peter, good is subjective to the individual, and reasoned democratically, logically and scientifically for the one human society.

PETER: So if good is just your preference verses mine then there is no good to it, its just power politics and don't call it good, call it establishing your might over the weaker.

TIMMY: So sad that your faith has you such a pessimist and a believer in human differences rather than in our commonalities. You always seem to think in terms of dictatorships. Reason my friend. Reason and logic can sort all of these things out were it not for the fact that the majority of the world were brainwashed as children to believe in a magic dictator.

PETER: You can't explain good from anything man does, for which man is your subjective standard going to come from?

TIMMY: When we are all one human society working together for our survival and happiness, we will each have our own subjective ideas of love, happiness, good and bad, but we will have no trouble, with all of our collective minds working together, with reason free from superstition, and logic free from folklore, and science, we will have no trouble coming to a consensus ass to what is good for the happiness of the whole. But only as one society. Only religion stands in the way.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

SCOT: "Peter - the record of those threads clearly shows that it is you who failed to answer my first question to you."

What was that?

SCOT: "The only futility here is in getting you to admit that your faith is just that - yours - nothing more and nothing less."

Of course it is my faith, the faith that God has given me. But it is a faith that is based on the eternal God, a source outside myself and that is God, the God that I contend who is necessary to make sense of anything. He is the necessary condition for life, origins, intelligence, knowledge, truth, morality, information, purpose, meaning.

TIMMY: "But wait, is it fair to compare religion to a loaded gun? Ex 35:2....Lev 20:13...."

TIMMY: "Harmless.
It's people that are the problem."

Do you see something WRONG in this? If you do then why is your standard the standard that determines "wrong?"

Of course, if you are the Creator and establish what marriage is to be or make a covenant with a certain people who agree to honor it and then break there word, are you not able to carry out justice? Deuteronomy 28; Exodus 19:3-8

ME: "But what you do is illogical in itself Timmy. You say that there is no evidence for God, but assume that energy is eternal in nature"

TIMMY: "No sir, I do not assume. Assuming is your gig. I consider things on scales of possible, plausible, and probable.

ME: "But what you do is illogical in itself Timmy. You say that there is no evidence for God, but assume that energy is eternal in nature"

TIMMY: "No sir, I do not assume. Assuming is your gig. I consider things on scales of possible, plausible, and probable. Never assuming or "believing" any of them to be true."

There are certain non-negotiable starting points that you assume. From your standpoint you assume God does not exist because you say you see no evidence for His existence.

ME: "Yet in everything observable in nature we see a source"

TIMMY: "We do. But somewhere along the line, something had to have always existed. It seems most logical to me that we are living in that thing, we may be that thing."

There you go. Lecturing me on assuming while you do the very thing in your next breathe. Great consistency there Timmy!

That something that had to always exist is the Christian God. (Acts 17:24-31)

ME: "Logically it would be safe to assume that logic must in this case come from a Mind"

TIMMY: "It is never safe to assume. What you mean is it is safe to consider the possibility, perhaps even the plausibility, but never, I repeat never assume. ASS U ME."

ME: "We cannot point to anything outside of a mind possessing logic, the ability to reason. So the source of logic is a Mind"

TIMMY: "Are you trying to be tricky here or do you truly not see how this ain't necessarily so. Processing logic is not the same thing as creating logic for one. And two, you are also reasoning on a false assumption here that something had to create logic. It seems most logical to me that logic developed via natural selection."

I'm working from the aspect of creating and using logic, and I'm not talking artificial intelligence for a mind built both a computer and robot.

How does something that does not think naturally select? Selection has intent. Minds have intent.

ME: "Life needs a source"

TIMMY: "Illogical ASSUMPTION due to infinite regression."

Not illogical when all observation sees life giving birth to life and God being eternal life. The regression stops at God as the source. The source of life is God who is eternal life.

So if you agree that life can be eternal then do you agree that that life points to God?

TIMMY: "Life has always been is also plausible, and due to infinite regression, more logical. A source answers nothing because the same logic by which life must have a source, requires the source to have an even more complex source."

So you go against the popular view that life had a beginning somewhere in the "evolutionary" process or against the idea that God is the source of all life. Life is plausible with God as that Life and the giver of all other life. Otherwise how do you make sense of it?

Does every effect have a cause?

Do you believe that times goes back into the past forever, since you state that both the universe and life could be forever?

Hi Timmy - December 11, 2008 4:19 AM

TIMMY: "Welcome back."

Unfortunately not for long. I work this weekend. Yeah, it sucks, but I'm also glad I have a job.

ME: "Without God there is no ultimate standard for the good."

TIMMY: "You and I are in agreement on this."

Okay, then how is "good" established? If my concept is different from yours then whose is good? If the society we live in is different from another, which social convention is it, whose is the good standard? Logically do you see that two opposite standards cannot both be true and good at the same time?

So if good is just your preference verses mine then there is no good to it, its just power politics and don't call it good, call it establishing your might over the weaker. You can't explain good from anything man does, for which man is your subjective standard going to come from? Good transcends the natural order, otherwise there are no right or wrong values.

You have used the terms "good, bad, right, wrong" throughout our conversations Timmy and yet you cannot make sense of the "ought" of it. Why ought something to be good? Now that worldview of yours seems inconsistent, and my claim has been all along that without Him you can't make sense of anything for He is necessary for there to be sense. You keep borrowing from the Christian position as you deny it.

ME: "Actually, the atheist takes the Christian line but fails to recognize that he does. Take those blinders off Timmy! The question is which came first, God or man?"

TIMMY: "If there is a creative source to the universe, it came first, of course. But there is no doubt that man preceded your myth."

Who is making the assumption now? (ASS-U-ME) You don't know that for sure as you have previously admitted.

I keep asking you questions and you keep saying, "I don't know." Have you ever considered that some people actually do know? God has revealed Himself Timmy.

Justilthen said:

"We do not Know, even as we may believe that we know"

Why believe that we know if we do not know?
What purpose is served by believing that one particular possibility is true?

Justilthen said,

"Most people are just using any tool available to self-validate their worlds"

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Religions don't bash gay people. People bash gay people.

Guns are not the problem
Religion is not the problem

But wait, is it fair to compare religion to a loaded gun?

Ex 35:2
2  For six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Lev 20:13
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Harmless.
It's people that are the problem.

Justilthen,

a vacuum does not dispense with gravity! Gravity is valid overall, even if its effect may be ever so small. There is no such thing as an absolute, complete void, otherwise we would be unable to communicate with a space craft billions of miles away through electromagnetic waves. Waves of what? Something!

The "void of space" is an idiomatic expression, an approximation, not a scientific description.

But we digress...

Change is the absolute. Heraclith already knew it: Panta rhei!

Peter Huff wrote: "Notsogreat did not take the bait, because I believe the futility of his thinking will be shown for what it is."

Peter - the record of those threads clearly shows that it is you who failed to answer my first question to you.

The only futility here is in getting you to admit that your faith is just that - yours - nothing more and nothing less.

Peter,

"Without an absolute standard there is no fixed measure of anything. You can only presuppose that what you believe is true, but you cannot offer anything but your preference, or the majority preference for believing so."

This is the case for most all belief systems. Yours as well, perhaps more so. Regarding an absolute reality we find none here, in the temporal world... Show it to me.
This manifest world seems almost devoid of absolutism. If there is an absolute it may be that everything is absolutely unique and individuated. Nothing is the same. Change is the only constant.
Talk of absolutism I like, but we are talking about it while living in a universe whose fundamental quality is Separation as opposed to Union.

Luckily, I believe, the two are hand in hand. Everything is connected while individuated.

Do note that I say I believe.

"So why should your standard that is constantly open for correction and modification be the one that is true?"
I would make a blind guess here and say that it is Absolutely not the only one... :-)

"A funny thing about truth is that if it is not an absolute there is no truth to it. By this I mean that truth, to be true, can never be false wise it would not be true."

Again, here it is true that at 1am it is night, and at 1pm it is day.
Unless, of course, you are at the north or south pole, and in the summer or the winter, in which case these rules do not apply.
We do maintain our appointed sex upon travel there, to the best of my knowledge...
Unless THAT is where all these foolish transgender people are coming from!

:-)
Peace.

Hello Peter,

It is my understanding the the "chance" that atheists, (or scientists!), suggested that life came from was the slow and natural coming together of all elements that allowed for the evolution of organic life.
I do not think that science understands or explains what life is beyond chemical, electrical and electro-magnetic interactions. I am not convinced by any stretch that consciousness and awareness of self are satisfactorily explained by evolutionary progression. But I am not well enough versed to say.
I am happy with the theory of evolution even as I am a believer in a Creator Power. I believe that consciousness of self is divinely sourced, and that much is not known and understood because there is no current way to observe and quantify a spiritual level of the manifest world. Much of this dialogue is moot, except that it exercises the realm of possibilities.
We do not Know, even as we may believe that we know.

Hello frederic2:

"my example of gravity as an "absolute standard" may be somewhat far-fetched in this discussion, but your counter-argument is wrong: Gravity pervades everything. It is by no means "environmental". There is no such thing as "nil". Gravity makes the earth revolve around the sun, gravity forms galaxies into shapes like spirals, clusters. Gravity is never "on vacation"."

I am not a scientist, so I will agree and disagree. Your quote was: "As long as there is a choice about a standard it cannot be absolute. Gravity is an absolute standard, there is no choice about it. Or try hopping from the tenth floor."
Space programs are designed for the "void of space". Gravity is functionally irrelevant there, outside of the field of influence of a physical mass.
Gravity is an aspect of polarity. The material world is held 'together' because it is both attracted and repulsed. Else matter falls in one direction alone and there is no Big Bang.
Experiments are done in a vacuum for the express purpose of making irrelevant the Law of Gravity.

This is a law that affects the physical universe. We have yet to validate the possibility that there are alternative 'universes', but science sees hope.
Not that this one is not enough to cope with as it is. One speck of dust we have to explore here, as per your model, and we are already looking for parallel ones...

Thomas Baum - many remarkable people have claimed to converse with God.

Emmanual Swedenborg, a Luteran minister and man of immense talents by any standard, claimed to have spoken with God, and wrote tomes and volumes about these conversations - and was a veritable interpreter of God's Word. Many other Christian saints have made the same claims......

On the other hand, I often wonder why God does not speak to Buddhists?? Just once, I'd like to read of a Zen master that had a conversion experience during deep meditation and became a Christian - Ignatious Loyola had virtually no success converting Buddhists to Christianity...and he was not alone in this failure.

As my mother said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink......

And so it seems with stubborn non-theists throughout history.

Hello PeterHuff,

Irwin Kula, a rabbi and On Faith commentator, starts his current essay:

"Here is the sad truth about the unimportant, uninteresting, irrelevant, add no value and unfortunately polarizing and divisive way in which religion and scripture is used in contemporary culture. Everyone simply brings their religious views and their scriptural passages to prove, legitimate, and affirm their already held political and psychological positions. This is religion as apologetics and proof texting."
Goes on from there. I think that does not apply only to contemporary culture but has been the case with interpretation of sacred text since it's inception. We can, essentially, justify most anything quoting Scripture. As I am sure you know the current debate is can we justify and legitimize homosexual marriage Scripturally. Some interesting essays are written pro and con, and both, regarding it.

Part of my point here is that humans have a tendency to use information and stimulus from their worlds as further supports and validations for the worldview that they already hold. It is not the tendency of people to look at how they do not understand. It is their tendency to believe that their perceptions are indeed correct, and they have a catalogue of reasons for that.
That is part of the value, and deficit, of the rational mind. Once it makes some reasonable assumptions and beliefs then it views the world though that lens. Ones' actions in their lives are informed by those rationalizations. Driven by them.

No one is perfect in most systems of belief. You may say man is Fallen. Okay. Our beliefs, and logic, are imperfect. We may rue letting go of a foundational belief even if clear evidence invalidates it. We stubbornly hold onto belief systems, and rationality, because without it our world falls apart. Having been built on these assumptions.

I know that the Bible can and does get used to justify any kind of thing. You name it.
Science does too. Politics do as well.
Most people are just using any tool available to self-validate their worlds.

"I agree with Timmy on this one. You cannot even think or make sense of anything without using logic."

Even your terms are bent to logic, as you are using that function. But making sense of anything does not need to be founded in logic, except for the logical mind. Deep in what some may call spiritual transendence or spiritual union, or emotional or sexual union and transendence, the logical mind and rationality can disappear. Not thinking, justifying, rationalizing.... But there is awareness and deep understanding way beyond the busy brain that wants logical justifications and reason.

"The standard atheistic argument of evolution cannot account for it."

I believe that I agree with you on this point, if based on my last point.

Peace.

Frederick2 said:

"Our understanding, of course, is no "absolute standard" but, fortunately a "work in progress", which makes it so fascinating as compared to the boring "eternal truth" meme that people refusing to enter into this process of growing understanding try to shove down our throat"

Hear hear. well said.

Hello Peter,

YOU:
"You are not open to any logic or evidence that I could give you. You have too much at stake. You do not want the answer (John 3:19-20), for you do not want to admit that you are wrong"

Bald faced lie. fleeing from real debate. Absolute rubbish. I am open to all logic. You just don't have any.

YOU:
"Show me that you have an unchanging foundation on which to base your wild claims"

I have never claimed to have an unchanging foundation, and I have made no wild claims. That is your department.

YOU:
"If it is not unchanging and absolute then it is inconsistent and subject to change"

It is what it is. Believing that it is something else wont help.

YOU:
"My claim all along is that you cannot make sense of this world without God"

You can not make sense of this world with God.

YOU:
"All you can do is offer an opinion, a preference"

And science, and reason, and logic. That is all we have.

YOU:
"If it boils down to preference then you have no moral "right" to condemn 9/11 or Hitler"

Fortunately you are not right that it boils down to preference.

YOU:
"No, a democracy can shift its opinion of truth and right and good depending on who is in power and how convincing they are able to be"

The people are in power in a democracy. You are thinking of a dictatorship.
If the people shift their opinion of truth and right, they will be doing it collectively, with good reason, evidence, logic and science.

YOU:
"What is your measure when your democracy is constantly changing"

Reason, logic, science, democracy.

YOU:
"In our home country of Canada not long ago abortion and same-sex marriage were considered wrong by the majority"

Only because of religion. People are fortunately waking up to the fact that we can not allow an irrational world view to influence our public policy.

YOU:
"Account for why your good is "the" good?"

I don't have a "good". I never claimed to have a "Good".
This is standard PH straw manning.

YOU:
"You can't make sense of it. That is what I have said all along"

So have I. But neither can you. We're all in the dark. Reason and logic are all we have.

YOU:
"Without God nothing ultimately makes sense"

With your God, nothing ultimately makes sense.

We are still in search of information to help us make sense of things.

YOU:
"That speaks volumes for His existence alone, without offering other proofs"

Poppycock.

Justilthen,

my example of gravity as an "absolute standard" may be somewhat far-fetched in this discussion, but your counter-argument is wrong: Gravity pervades everything. It is by no means "environmental". There is no such thing as "nil". Gravity makes the earth revolve around the sun, gravity forms galaxies into shapes like spirals, clusters. Gravity is never "on vacation".

PH's standard is a standard of his (or his group's) choice. One can abandon it, as I have, without the slightest drawback, on the contrary, acquiring a wonderful feeling of freedom. Nobody can "abandon" gravity.

May I continue my scaling of the universe from Dec. 9 :
Earth: scaled back to the size of a pea
Sun: at a distance of 10 meters, size of a big gymnastics ball.
Alpha centauri: roughly 10.000 km distant (we are talking levels of magnitude, so forget about "smaller" discrepancies, lol!), as the next star there is from the solar system.

Now let's scale back these 10.000 km to 10 meters again (divide by one million):

The diameter of the sun is now one millionth of the gymnastics ball, scarcely, if at all, visible.
Earth: Not visible anymore, less than a speck of dust.

Milky way: 100.000 light years in extension. If we stay on this scale, it extends to 250 km.

And this is only one of billions of galaxies!

Considering these dimensions, the little god or gods created by humans out of frustration caused by ignorance (historically unavoidable and comprehensible) appears as an auxiliary ephemeral proxy to bridge those huge gaps of understanding. "Ephemeral" because of the minuscule time window we are talking about when discussing human history of about 3000 years.

Our understanding, of course, is no "absolute standard" but, fortunately a "work in progress", which makes it so fascinating as compared to the boring "eternal truth" meme that people refusing to enter into this process of growing understanding try to shove down our throat.

Hello Peter

YOU:
"So I can say that the computer I created is perfect"

You can say that.
But if that computer later gets a virus I can say that it was not perfect. (This computer analogy is terrible, but I will humor you as best I can)

YOU:
"Man decides to believe Satan instead, which results in the Fall of man"

Who's Satan? Who created Satan?

Was deciding to believe Satan the wrong thing to do?
How did man make that decision. With his what? With his logic and reason? Where did he get this logic and reason that caused him to make a bad decision? From God?

"Along comes another programmer (Satan) with defective software that causes a virus in the basic program"

Such a bad analogy. Computers that we have today get viruses because they are not perfect.

Peter,

YOU:
"By logic we believe that the universe is decaying. It is winding down. If it is deteriorating and disintegrating then why is it not constant? If life has always been why is it not constant? Why is each successive generation more depleted?"

We don't know. This is not evidence for God.
Deteriorating and disintegrating is our current science, but we have been wrong enough about such things so as not to make ASSUMPTIONS and form beliefs on temporary theories. It may simply be a cyclical thing. It expands, deteriorates, and then recreates itself all over again. It is an open question that you are trying to close with ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Not logical.

"Where is the other life in the universe? Why is our planet the only one that we know of that is able to sustain life? You have to make a lot of assumptions Timmy that you have no proof of"

You keep ASSUMING that I make assumptions like you, but I don't. Your statement above ASSUMES thing about me that are untrue and is therefore completely invalid and untrue

YOU:
"Because you do not want the answer to be God"

I have no aversion to the answer being God. I am neutral. I only care what is true. I do not desire for the truth to be anything but the truth. I am completely open to the answer being God.

YOU:
"you destroy everything that points to Him"

There is nothing that points to him.

YOU:
"You do not want to admit that you are wrong because you like calling the shots and by admitting you are wrong you would be at His mercy, which you are anyway, you just don't realize it"

Baseless ASSUMPTION, absolute nonsense, delusional diatribe.
Shame on you Peter. You are letting logic and reason slip away from you.

Hello Peter,

Welcome back.

"Without God there is no ultimate standard for the good."

You and I are in agreement on this.

"Actually, the atheist takes the Christian line but fails to recognize that he does. Take those blinders off Timmy! The question is which came first, God or man?"

If there is a creative source to the universe, it came first, of course. But there is no doubt that man preceded your myth.

Logically it would be safe to assume that logic must in this case come from a Mind"

It is never safe to assume. What you mean is it is safe to consider the possibility, perhaps even the plausibility, but never, I repeat never assume. ASS U ME.

"We cannot point to anything outside of a mind possessing logic, the ability to reason. So the source of logic is a Mind"

Are you trying to be tricky here or do you truly not see how this ain't necessarily so. Processing logic is not the same thing as creating logic for one. And two, you are also reasoning on a false assumption here that something had to create logic. It seems most logical to me that logic developed via natural selection.

"Life needs a source"

Illogical ASSUMPTION due to infinite regression.
Life has always been is also plausible, and due to infinite regression, more logical. A source answers nothing because the same logic by which life must have a source, requires the source to have an even more complex source.

YOU:
But what you do is illogical in itself Timmy. You say that there is no evidence for God, but assume that energy is eternal in nature"

No sir, I do not assume. Assuming is your gig. I consider things on scales of possible, plausible, and probable. Never assuming or "believing" any of them to be true.

"Yet in everything observable in nature we see a source"

We do. But somewhere along the line, something had to have always existed. It seems most logical to me that we are living in that thing, we may be that thing.

Justillthen,

TIMMY: ""You think you need to check reason and logic at the door to be in touch with your feelings and spirituality. That is really our fundamental difference."

I agree with Timmy on this one. You cannot even think or make sense of anything without using logic.

The question is how does one account for logic?

The standard atheistic argument of evolution cannot account for it. In a material world where does an intangible, abstract concept that cannot be seen or touched or felt or heard or tasted or empirically verified come from?

Hi Timmy,

ME: "Belief in God is very logical"

TIMMY: "Baseless statement. Not backed up with evidence or logic"

You are not open to any logic or evidence that I could give you. You have too much at stake. You do not want the answer (John 3:19-20), for you do not want to admit that you are wrong.

ME: "Without an absolute standard it is all arbitrary"

TIMMY: "Not evidence that God exists. Just a statement of how things are."

Show me that you have an unchanging foundation on which to base your wild claims. If it is not unchanging and absolute then it is inconsistent and subject to change. My claim all along is that you cannot make sense of this world without God. All you can do is offer an opinion, a preference. Big deal Timmy. If it boils down to preference then you have no moral "right" to condemn 9/11 or Hitler.

ME: "Truth, morals, knowledge, certainty become subjective opinion and a power struggle of whose subjective opinion is the one that is going to rule"

TIMMY: "Not in a democracy. Collective subjective opinions find commonality correlated with human history, science, and reason. Standing in the way of reason is religion."

No, a democracy can shift its opinion of truth and right and good depending on who is in power and how convincing they are able to be. One judge is able to turn a law so that the opposite values are now in effect. You need to explain how you account for good. What is your measure when your democracy is constantly changing. In our home country of Canada not long ago abortion and same-sex marriage were considered wrong by the majority. So what makes them right now? Your inconsistent subjective opinion that you have no ultimate, objective basis for. Account for why your good is "the" good?

ME: "I have noticed how many times you, Timmy, have used qualitative judgments. Well, is your standard, your reference point absolute and unchanging?"

TIMMY: "No. Does not mean that God exists."

You can't make sense of it. That is what I have said all along. Without God nothing ultimately makes sense. That speaks volumes for His existence alone, without offering other proofs.

ME: "If not why should or ought I take it as valid?"

TIMMY: "Reason and logic."

Whose?

Hello again Frederic2 and Justillthen,

FREDERIC2: "As long as there is a choice about a standard it cannot be absolute. Gravity is an absolute standard, there is no choice about it. Or try hopping from the tenth floor."

In a universe that most atheists would say came about by Chance how do you get consistency like a natural law or gravity. The problem of Chance or possibility is that it cannot predict the future, it can only presuppose it. Chance and possibility implies change. Therefore, such a worldview is inconsistent and has no way of knowing whether tomorrow will be like today. Therefore such a basis for science is not logical. Maybe that is why so many scientists change their minds as more of the facts are discovered. The nature of Chance predicts nothing. You need an unchanging standard in order to make sense of science - God.

FREDERIC2: "I as a "spiritual atheist" chose another view - it may not be an absolute standard, since it stays open for correction and modification, but it proves, that the so-called absolute standard of PH is nothing but an arbitrary choice, with billions of humans having other choices. Calling it "absolute" is as relative as you can get!"

You have not proved any such thing.

Without an absolute standard there is no fixed measure of anything. You can only presuppose that what you believe is true, but you cannot offer anything but your preference, or the majority preference for believing so. So why should your standard that is constantly open for correction and modification be the one that is true? In other words why is what you say determined to be true? Who are you to call something truth that you do not know for certain is true? Without an absolute standard you don't know, that is just the point. You have a constantly changing epistemological structure. It is a he says, she says problem.

A funny thing about truth is that if it is not an absolute there is no truth to it. By this I mean that truth, to be true, can never be false wise it would not be true. All you, as atheists ever have (unless you look at the world from God's perspective - talk about the epitome of inconsistency) is subjective opinion.

Truth can not be known except by a mind and in order for truth to be known it must presuppose an ultimate Mind. A being is needed to comprehend truth, and that being must have an absolute, objective, unchanging standard or else it is just speculation.

Timmy

So God created man with the ability for that loving relationship or with the ability to reject that relationship. Man is created perfect yet innocent and naive, so that God can teach man who He is and once known man can love God of his own free volition. He starts to interact with the man, gets the man to name all the animals as He interacts, interacts with man each day, then gives man the option in his knowledge of God so far as to whether man will reciprocate that affection by testing him.

Man (i.e. mankind - male and female) decides to believe Satan instead, which results in the Fall of man - man coming to know, experientially, the difference between good and evil (the dreaded virus in the form of a software package - a new worldview).

Before man ate of the fruit of the tree he only had a head knowledge of good and bad/evil. He has not yet been fully taught (fully built by the Programmer with the perfect operating system, just the basic one), for a relationship with God is taking place step by step.

Along comes another programmer (Satan) with defective software that causes a virus in the basic program. (i.e. God allowing Satan to test mans affection towards God).

Now man has an experiential knowledge of bad or evil. The difference now between God and man is that God knows about evil (omniscient) and its consequences, but for God, not in a personal, experiential way in that God has not partaken in evil whereas man has an experiential knowledge of evil that is now a part of him.

The original Designer of the computer now has the option to destroy the computer which was made perfect and now is corrupt, or install an anti-virus to fix the operating system, eliminate the virus, and fire the programmer with the faulty software.

The Christian life is God's anti-virus for sin and evil given in Christ Jesus. He (Jesus)is the application that seeks out the virus, kills it and again makes the computer ready for completion of loading the perfect operating system - the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; 24-26; 15:26-27).

Timmy continued,

TIMMY: "That is why I love him. Because it is so easy to show his particular God to be not possible logically. I have tangled with him before and I have him cornered on this "manufacturer blaming it's product for being faulty" catch. His God story can not escape this logical fallacy. We've been here before, he has no out. It's quite fun."

The problem in using a human analogy is, because of the Fall, it is flawed. But let me try one.

I can create a computer without a program that is a perfect computer in that it is capable of functioning in the way it was intended to without flaw. So I can say that the computer I created is perfect. All it needs is to be programmed to function in the desired way so that it performs as it should. Now I start to add the basic operating programming.

So let's translate that analogy to God.

God creates man (computer) perfect yet innocent and naive (Basic program or no program yet installed), not fully taught. He creates him this way so that God can have the joy of interacting (adding software to the computer) with man, forming a loving relationship with him, and teaching (adding content) step by step, instead of fully teaching (full operating system) man from the start. In this way man can learn logic and love from a working relationship with God.

Now a robot can be completely programmed to do everything the Creator wants it to, perfectly, but without the ability to return affection freely. Something that is programmed to return affection cannot show affection freely, only as it is determined to do so.

Recap: So the computer is perfect, its design is perfect in that there are no flaws (perfect tool), the content is being added (limited functionality).

Hi Timmy,

Ah, the old sage is at it again. You are very wise in your own mind.

TIMMY: "PH can not revert to the old "Spirituality and logic are in two separate domains" argument but rather tries to find ways to show his God to be the only logical answer possible."

Quote from R.C. Sproul: "Augustine argues that though Christians face the difficulty of explaining the presence of evil in the universe, the pagan has a problem that is twice as difficult. Before one can even have a problem of evil, one must first have an antecedent existence of the good. Those who complain about the problem of evil now also have the problem of defining the existence of the good. Without God there is no ultimate standard for the good."

http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/12/1115_The_Mystery_of_Iniquity

Care to comment Timmy?

TIMMY: "PH takes the atheist line that a world view must answer to logic (he is right) to be rational, but he somehow thinks that he can make a case for his specific version of God with logic. (he is wrong)"

Actually, the atheist takes the Christian line but fails to recognize that he does. Take those blinders off Timmy! The question is which came first, God or man?

You talk of logic. Logically all we see is minds possessing the ability to think and use logic. Logically it would be safe to assume that logic must in this case come from a Mind. We cannot point to anything outside of a mind possessing logic, the ability to reason. So the source of logic is a Mind.

Now the atheist is in a bind in claiming that life evolved from none life (which I will give you credit for in that you don't do). Rocks or matter has not been show to think and use logic. So when atheists make the claim that life began it is the atheist who is being inconsistent with reality. Life needs a source.

But what you do is illogical in itself Timmy. You say that there is no evidence for God, but assume that energy is eternal in nature. Yet in everything observable in nature we see a source.

By logic we believe that the universe is decaying. It is winding down. If it is deteriorating and disintegrating then why is it not constant? If life has always been why is it not constant? Why is each successive generation more depleted?

Where is the other life in the universe? Why is our planet the only one that we know of that is able to sustain life? You have to make a lot of assumptions Timmy that you have no proof of.

Because you do not want the answer to be God, in your mind you destroy everything that points to Him. You do not want to admit that you are wrong because you like calling the shots and by admitting you are wrong you would be at His mercy, which you are anyway, you just don't realize it.

Justilthen

PH = Peter Huff

Frederick2

Very well put.

PH is a unique phenomenon. While most defense of religion involves the notion that matters of the spiritual belong in a separate domain from logic and reason, PH takes an entirely different tact. He, like most atheists, believes that one's world view must be based in sound logic and reason. So while most defenders of religion admit that it is not logical or reasonable, but such is the nature of faith and matters of the spirit, PH takes the atheist line that a world view must answer to logic (he is right) to be rational, but he somehow thinks that he can make a case for his specific version of God with logic. (he is wrong)

PH can not revert to the old "Spirituality and logic are in two separate domains" argument but rather tries to find ways to show his God to be the only logical answer possible.

That is why I love him. Because it is so easy to show his particular God to be not possible logically. I have tangled with him before and I have him cornered on this "manufacturer blaming it's product for being faulty" catch. His God story can not escape this logical fallacy. We've been here before, he has no out. It's quite fun.

Hello frederic2:

"As long as there is a choice about a standard it cannot be absolute. Gravity is an absolute standard, there is no choice about it. Or try hopping from the tenth floor."

I agree withing the applicable natural laws. But the effect of gravity is nil in space, or "the vacuum of space". Yet that is still part of the manifest world. Your absolute standard would have to apply in all 'environments' of th"Created Universe", or it would not be absolute. It would be true environmentally.

Help me to understand. What do you mean by PH?

As long as there is a choice about a standard it cannot be absolute. Gravity is an absolute standard, there is no choice about it. Or try hopping from the tenth floor.

I as a "spiritual atheist" chose another view - it may not be an absolute standard, since it stays open for correction and modification, but it proves, that the so-called absolute standard of PH is nothing but an arbitrary choice, with billions of humans having other choices. Calling it "absolute" is as relative as you can get!

Hello Peter,

"Belief in God is very logical"

Baseless statement. Not backed up with evidence or logic

"Without an absolute standard it is all arbitrary"

Not evidence that God exists. Just a statement of how things are.

"Truth, morals, knowledge, certainty become subjective opinion and a power struggle of whose subjective opinion is the one that is going to rule"

Not in a democracy. Collective subjective opinions find commonality correlated with human history, science, and reason. Standing in the way of reason is religion.

"I have noticed how many times you, Timmy, have used qualitative judgments. Well, is your standard, your reference point absolute and unchanging?"

No. Does not mean that God exists.

"If not why should or ought I take it as valid?"

Reason and logic.

Hi Timmy,

I see you and Justillthen have been busy.

TIMMY: "Love is logical.
Hate is logical
Compassion is logical
Sorrow is logical
l
Belief in God is not logical."

Belief in God is very logical. Without an absolute standard it is all arbitrary. Truth, morals, knowledge, certainty become subjective opinion and a power struggle of whose subjective opinion is the one that is going to rule. I have noticed how many times you, Timmy, have used qualitative judgments. Well, is your standard, your reference point absolute and unchanging?

If not why should or ought I take it as valid?

Justilthen said:

" I have communicated with thought and reason concepts that are beyond logics' domain"

Nothing is beyond logic's domain. This is our fundamental difference.
If we ever discover god, it will be perfectly logical

"But spirituality and emotions are not necessarily logical"

Poppycock! Everything is logical, or it does not exist.

"Spirituality is again, by definition, non-validatable. But I believe that it's realm is non-linear, so non-logical"

This is our fundamental difference. Everything is logical or it does not exist. If we ever find God. It will be perfectly logical.

You have ignored the challenge to show why believing that something plausible, is in fact true, without evidence, is somehow more beneficial than simply believing it to be plausible and keeping an open mind.

Love is logical.
Hate is logical
Compassion is logical
Sorrow is logical
l
Belief in God is not logical.

Timmy,

""I do. I have offered some of it"

No you have not."

I HAVE OFFERED IT.
You have been deaf.
Your 'reason' has been clouded by an emotion.

"Not destroy. Point out faults in. Point out lack of reason and rationality. They destroy themselves. I just raise awareness of their lack of reason."

You lie to yourself. If this is the PR that you both promote of yourself and feed on then you are not worth the dialogue.

"You think you need to check reason and logic at the door to be in touch with your feelings and spirituality. That is really our fundamental difference."

No, I do not. And that you believe that of me after reading my posts, what I have said, the way that I have said it, then you are twice delusional. I have communicated with thought and reason concepts that are beyond logics' domain.

"I have never seen anybody make a case for why reason and logic need to be separate from spirituality and emotions, and most importantly, world views."

And I do not think that it does either. But spirituality and emotions are not necessarily logical. This is clear with emotionality. Spirituality is again, by definition, non-validatable. But I believe that it's realm is non-linear, so non-logical.

I do not care any more timmy. This is useless.

I wish you well.

done.

Justilthen

"I do. I have offered some of it"

No you have not.

"Some of it I have not offered, and for good reason"

lol. It's a secret.

"We cannot yet validate that 'spirit' exists"

My point exactly. But you choose to believe that it does anyway. There is no benefit to that over just accepting it's plausibility.
But there are downsides to it. Delusion comes to mind.

"you have proven your intent toward destroying those type of beliefs"

Not destroy. Point out faults in. Point out lack of reason and rationality. They destroy themselves. I just raise awareness of their lack of reason.

You think you need to check reason and logic at the door to be in touch with your feelings and spirituality. That is really our fundamental difference. I have never seen anybody make a case for why reason and logic need to be separate from spirituality and emotions, and most importantly, world views.

As an addendum

"I have no interest in offering you more to shoot at, particularly as those things are meaningful to me and you have proven your intent toward destroying those type of beliefs."

My clarity of my spiritual experiences is not something that I have uncertainty about. I do not question that spirit exists and has affected my life, and I know how and why and when. It has received no shortage of my attention. These things are fundamental in my life and have transformed it and shaped it.
I do not lack rationality. Spirit is not always a convenient fit into the rational and measured.

Timmy,

"You have no evidence, reason or logic to hold the belief that you have. That makes it irrational, not to consider it, not to believe it to be plausible, but to believe it to be true."

I do. I have offered some of it. You prefer to overlook as valid or negate what you do not prejudge as viable. Some of it I have not offered, and for good reason. Regardless, without fail, your knee jerk reaction to anything 'God' or 'religion' is to discount and seek to discredit.
This subject is related to 'something' that is indefineable and unprovable, that being the existence of any creator source, or spirit at all. We cannot yet validate that 'spirit' exists.
You are an agent bent on shooting down anything 'religious' as your religion. Without real thought, it seems, but as a premeditated prejudice.
I have no interest in offering you more to shoot at, particularly as those things are meaningful to me and you have proven your intent toward destroying those type of beliefs.

"This is all about your frustration at not being able to give me a single rational reason why you believe in God. That is where "suck it Timmy" comes from."

Negative, Sir Tim the Second. Suck it timmy comes from my emotional feeling of annoyance at you insulting me.
As I said.
Continue to delude yourself that it is me, if you would like. It should help you avoid taking responsibility for being an arrogant elitist that hold the real truth.
Like your christian nemeses do.

Justilthen,

You got me. I have a religion. Beliefs formed without evidence, reason and logic are irrational beliefs. That is my belief. Unlike you I can now go on at length about why I hold that belief and all of the evidence that I have for this belief. Mountains of it.

You have no evidence, reason or logic to hold the belief that you have. That makes it irrational, not to consider it, not to believe it to be plausible, but to believe it to be true.

What you can not show, and will never be able to show, is how believing it to be true, is more helpful spiritually, than being more open minded, and simply believing it to be plausible. How is believing it to be plausible alone, insufficient to gaining spiritual benefit from it, as compared to believing it to be true?

Believing it to be true has no benefit over believing it to be plausible. Does it?

Why turn spirituality into a religion?
Be specific. Don't just make another broad statement off the top of your head like "religion is an expansion of spirituality and can help people with their spirituality".

How?
How does believing something to be true, help more than believing it to be plausible and remaining open minded about it, which is more honest?

I can cite mountains of evidence for irrational beliefs causing unspeakable human horror. Irrational beliefs are bad. Irrational beliefs are beliefs formed with no evidence, reason or logic. And they are bad only. They provide no benefit. You can not show any benefit that they provide. You just have a warm fuzzy feeling about them and you want us damn atheists to leave you and your irrationality alone.

Religion is the codification of irrational beliefs.
Religion bad (causes bad things and provides no benefit)
Spirituality good

Unless you can show me how believing that something is true, is more beneficial than the more honest position, believing it to be plausible, and keeping an open mind about it.

This is all about your frustration at not being able to give me a single rational reason why you believe in God. That is where "suck it Timmy" comes from.

Timmy.
I lied.

Two quick points from the beginning of your latest round.

"But to believe it to be true, one needs a reason, or reasons. The possibility of it being true is not enough to decide to believe it to be true. Even the plausibility of it is not a reason to decide to believe it to be true."

These are your rules. Not unrealistic ones, but not absolute. For some it is reason enough to believe in something if it is possible that it be true. Don't you know that? Shake thyself awake, O Crusader!

You said: "Perhaps "God" is us, timmy"

"Perhaps.
But that then would make the Bible wrong. Which is my whole point."

Yes, I am now utterly clear on this point, timmy.
Sir Timothy the Second, Valiant Crusader Knight of Reason.

:-)
Peace, Sire.
:-)

Timmy,

I see that you have been busy while I have, and I have not read it. But I have to get busy, and so cannot respond, if I do, until sometime in infinity.

more to do than chit chat.

Peace.

Timmy,

I did say that peter was a loon, and that was not meant as an insult but as a descriptive. He is one, and I kind of liked him even as I was clarifying ahead of time how we could avoid trouble. No doubt he is a loon. You are a loon too, though in a bit less cheery tenor.

"Now all of a sudden, after the poor man opened up to you and told you what he believes, you are calling him a loon and dismissing his version of God outright? How do you know that Peter isn't on to something? Why don't you listen to him and hear him out."

Are you serious, timmy? You are just combative arn't you now? He says howdy sideways and you jump all over his version of cosmology like a fly on sit. Sit I say. You are as receptive to his sermons and witnessing as a rock. ( Alright, slightly more than mundane mineral.) :-)
You then go on to say: "Are you not the biggest hypocrite this post has ever seen?"

My my. Is that a complement from you, timmy?
No, I am sure there are bigger hypocrites than me.

I do not even know how "insulting" someone on first meeting would be hypocritical. Indeed, I layed out groundrules with him in my first post to avoid potential problems, and so far as I know he and I do not have problems.
We also have not talked much, while I have dialogued with you at length.

These issues are from examples of very recent posts. I do not have the time or interest to go back and pull up more. I have had difficulty with you in debate and have said it. Perhaps there is something valid to my input on this.
Discount it if you prefer.
We got to an interesting place, but it was like schloogging through mud to get here.

And infinity to go? That is why life forms die. Too much work, over time.

"Sometimes right sounds elitist to those who don't get it."
And sometimes Wrong sounds elitist to those who don't get it.

Timmy,

As I said:
"Very few cultures through history have been atheistic.
Count 'em on a hand. It ain't the billions of non-spiritual humans you claim.
Not all of history is "bad" as a result. Would history be sparkling and white light if there were no religion? No way to answer, but I would have to go with no. It is moot, since spiritual inquisitivness, and by extension religion, have been essential to humanity. Hand in hand.

You have a war against 'religion', but it is firmly entrenched in humanity.
We need to put everything in a compartmentalized form... No different for spirituality than for science.

"Sometimes right sounds elitist to those who don't get it."
And sometimes Wrong sounds elitist to those who don't get it.

I did not say:
"Your reading comprehension is zero timmy"
"Timmy is a Bun Bun" ( Sparrows' work! What is a Bun Bun, other than referring to CCNL?)

I did say:
"You speak down to others, and with disdain"
"Suck it Timmy!" (loved that. I do have distaste for arrogance. probably because I have done my share and judge it...)
"Lets' form a club. Just say no to Timmy's"

Timmy,

OK.
My statement: ""I do not need your approval of my comments, timmy, to know that what I write is right, at least for me" came after one of a number of you arrogant or insulting replies.

One thing that I have learned of you is that you define some words differently than I, and have great sensitivity to them. If I use the word God you assume that I am speaking of the Bible, or the Christian version of Diety. You then have it in your mind, it seems to me, to then make my statement interrelate with the word 'religion', which seems always to be Abrahamic to you, and bad.
I did not say that religion was essential to humanity but that God was, in a dialogue with Peter, a born again. I will, like you perhaps, use language and wording different for different people. "God" works for him. It clearly does not work for you. I had to further define my meaning when you negated my statement to him, so that you could accept it.

Your response was an arrogant "Yes. This time you got it right." One of many such replies.
And you know what is right and wrong, Professor?
Perhaps four years here is a shade too long.
And perhaps I do insult easily, but I do not think so. Again, it took a bit.

I do not need your approval and find it insulting. I do not need to be led toward your form of rationality and logic to find your conclusions that you "do not know" are true but in fact are sure are, as you said you were trying to do 'for me'. I did not enter your classroom for instruction and conversion, and your arrogance, MLK and Lincoln aside,(blessings on their transformed heads, still further proof of your arrogance!), is a turnoff to debate.

You should name your classroom like the motto of YOUR religion:
"Spirituality good.
Religion bad.
Religion does not aid spirituality, it subverts it."

Justilthen said:

"Though he goes about boxing as if he is absolutely sure that he does know what is NOT true, and so believes he knows some truth"

Truths I know.

Dragons are make believe
Ferries are make believe
Yahweh is make believe
Allah is make believe
Charles Manson is not the son of God
David Karesh is not the son of God
Jesus is not the son of God
Racism is wrong
Slavery is wrong
Elvis is not still alive

We all claim to know certain truths. We all have beliefs.
Some of us can show rational reason for what we believe.
Some of us decided, for some unknown reason, that truth is more likely to be found by casting aside reason and logic, rather than employing them.

I am sorry for you Justilthen if you do not know the same truths that I listed above. But I can give very good reasons why I believe all of those things. You can not do the same for some of the things that you claim to believe. (I know, I know, you can, but you won't for me, because I don't deserve to know the truth. lololol)

Justilthen said:
"Peter Huff may be the happiest person around. Actually seemed that way. His worldview may be quite fulfilling for him, even if for me it does not work or fit. For me. For him it may be the perfect fit"

Then why did you call him a "loon"???

Justilthen,

You said:
"My beliefs include immortal spirit, being a part of the Oneness of God/Buddahmind/CreatorSource, moving between manifest matter and non incarnate existence seamlessly. The manifest, 'sensory' world lives and dies and breathes in and out. Spirit pervades all things. "God" IS spirit, which is immortal and timeless, manifesting itself in time and space"

That's a cool theory. Possible. Plausible I suppose. On the table for me.

But to believe it to be true, one needs a reason, or reasons. The possibility of it being true is not enough to decide to believe it to be true. Even the plausibility of it is not a reason to decide to believe it to be true.

I accept what you wrote as an on the table theory.
What is the reason, that you go one step further and say I believe it to be true. We don't just believe things because they are plausible, there needs to be something that pushes the theory from plausible to probable. What is the thing that pushes your theory (what you believe) from plausible to probable. Otherwise, you have to "believe" in everything that is plausible.

You said: "Perhaps "God" is us, timmy"

Perhaps.
But that then would make the Bible wrong. Which is my whole point.

Spirituality is a search for the truth
Religion is the keeper of the truth

Spirituality good
religion bad

Spirituality honest
Religion dishonest

You keep calling religion an expansion of spirituality.
Religion is a political hijacking of spirituality.
It impedes true spirituality

That is why I speak out against it.

You said:
"Allow those that benefit from something to do it"

I do. I am not stopping anyone from doing anything am I?
I allow smokers to smoke cigarettes, and I also criticize them for doing so because it harms them and others. But I am not looking to pass a law against cigarettes or religion. So put a cork in this accusation that I am trying to stop anyone from doing anything.

You said:
"You cannot say that others can get no good from a philosophy or belief system just because you judge it as baseless"

From a philosophy, no, I can not say.

But from a belief system that is not based in reality I can say that there is no good to be gained.

Al of the good parts of the bible are not religion, they are philosophies that are available to the secular mind in every bit as powerful a way as they are for the believer. There is no good reason to believe in something that you don't know to be true. It doesn't help you get any more out of those philosophies than does open minded spirituality.

Spirituality: Fundamental, Necessary

Religion: not fundamental, not necessary, not true

CCNL:

More about the importance of Energy in the Nothingness of Space as per Phil Berman in his column in this month's Astronmy Magazine:

Fascinating bit, ccnl. Thanks.

PERSIFLAGE

You wrote, "At the moment of his enlightenment the great Japanese Zen master Dogen exclaimed 'no mind and no body'! He futher elucidated - everything is merely a continuous flashing into existence from nothingness."

Kind of like when God said, "Let there be...", also as far as people go, "Let there be ______" (insert name of person).

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

frederic2:

Loved your post and the scaled visualization of the universe. It does get some things in perspective. But I guess that it was the sheer immensity of life and the known universe that prompted earlier man to comtemplate his place in it, ( I am one that would say, say, longer ago than 6,000 years this contemplation began :-) ). That tendency will probably continue for some time.

At least till the End Times! :-) :-) :-)

"Timmy et alii, you will never break through the neuron wiring of Peter Huff."

My question may be "why try?"
It ends up amounting to a boxing match. And noone knows the Truth. Timmy does not, and has said that he "does not know". Though he goes about boxing as if he is absolutely sure that he does know what is NOT true, and so believes he knows some truth. Peter Huff is convinced of his way...
Why seek to convert anyone from what they believe? Peter Huff may be the happiest person around. Actually seemed that way. His worldview may be quite fulfilling for him, even if for me it does not work or fit. For me. For him it may be the perfect fit.

Who am I to judge that?

Timmy,

Third bit.

I do not know that I would say that 'energy' IS 'spirit', but that is certainly possible. It is purer, and non personified, I assume. It is an assumption.

I do consider 'Spirit' to be consciousness that has the capacity of self awareness. Let's say has the capacity of awareness, and the assumption of the extensions of what consciousness with awareness may beget.

Timmy,

"Mind, consciousness, (you have your own words), spirit, is to me the immortal aspect, as creator source, that would allow in my view the recycling or the universe to go on and consciousness, incarnate in form, to inhabit it"

That's a cool though. I dig it. Possible. Logical.
No evidence to indicate that it is true.
But not a wacko theory like God in the Bible

As I have said, religions are extensions of humanities spiritual search. Theories are formed into religions. For instance, Persiflage discusses Dogen in a post below this one. Zen is a religious format for comprehending spiritual assumptions and contemplations. And Experiences.
You may look favorably on zen, I do not know. But you are very negative on christianity for sure, among others I believe.
Allow those that benefit from something to do it. You cannot say that others can get no good from a philosophy or belief system just because you judge it as baseless.

"Why do you say that something had to have always existed?"

Infinite regression.

I understand this concept, but it again only assumes living in laws of the "third dimension". A dualistic or polarized world.
If something always exists, which is not clear here, then it must be Singular, or Unified, or a Oneness.
One dimensional, perhaps.

Your energy changes forms. Is even the elemental or atomic energy "the Same" as in untransformed?
If it is transformed then it cannot be Immortal, if the definition of Immortal includes always IS.
Otherwise its' always ISNESS is always something else that that.

Or Immortality is Everything, and so maintains sameness throughout all manifest forms.

My beliefs include immortal spirit, being a part of the Oneness of God/Buddahmind/CreatorSource, moving between manifest matter and non incarnate existence seamlessly. The manifest, 'sensory' world lives and dies and breathes in and out. Spirit pervades all things. "God" IS spirit, which is immortal and timeless, manifesting itself in time and space.

Perhaps "God" is us, timmy.

timmy,

Everything that is manifest has a beginning, a 'life', and an ending'. All things die"

"Energy has no beginning or ending. Just transformation."

Transformation is another name for death.

"I know of nothing in the physical universe that is immortal.
Do you?"

Energy

I am not a scientist, but from my understanding of current science, and putting it into my own terms, energy manifests in a couple of ways, (although theory may suggest that it should become definable singularly). Maybe we could say inate and animated, for simplicities sake.
First, it is my understanding that your stated belief of universal fundamentals was that everything was energy/material. I will assume that here, referring to energy, you are talking of inate energy in elements. Atomic energy.

We do not know that energy is immortal, (I believe), as it is subject to the laws of life/death by transforming. We may not know, on a universal level, if physical matter is immortal, for that matter. Our science is yet young. Stars and planets appear to be born and die, crush into black holes, dark matter, density into expansion, inhale and exhale, and supernova back into a new form.

But "life" as we perceive it ceases.
Whatever it is that inhabits an animal or plant form and causes it to be 'animate', dies.

We do not see energy in a "dead" body of a life form. Certainly not active energy. You may say, as an atheist, that the physical matter is inate and in process of being recycled. But the activity of your "energy" that was evident and measurable while the form was living, (and breathing and talking and aware of itself!), is no longer present.

Somehow the sheer vastness of the known universe, impossible to imagine, makes this whole god discussion, at least for me, rather moot and meaningless.

If, as a mental experiment, we reduce the earth, as can easily be imagined through watching Google earth, to the size of a pea, the sun would be at a distance of 30 feet, a rather big ball containing 300.000 peas.

Now, the next star, Alpha Centauri, would be at a distance of four light years, roughly 10.000 miles in this scale (Remember: The sun 30 feet!).

Our "home" galaxy, the milky way, extends to about 100.000 light years (remember: Alpha Centauri 4 light years!). It contains 400 billion Suns or sun systems, with a mass of around a trillion (a thousand billion) sun masses.

That is ONE galaxy.

There are billions of galaxies.

And here we are mincing words with people who adhere to a "theory" that the earth is 6000 years old, the center of the universe, and Noah collecting his couple of "couples" on his boat - simply ridiculous; or "god" sending us to hell because we doubt this rubbish etc. etc..

All this based on a tiny tiny historic section of life on our planet, the arguments between half-developed, superstitious, helpless cultures which desperately, and of course futilely, try to make sense of their minuscule outlook on their surrounding.

Timmy et alii, you will never break through the neuron wiring of Peter Huff. One of the basic properties of brainwashed people is the illusion that they possess what they call "truth". It is an easily detectable symptom, affecting many many people, too many in light of today's available knowledge and discoveries.

Timmy,
I've been busy, but recently read you last post addressed to me. You are astute, but when I read Isaiah I am more impressed by the writings such as about the lion dwelling with the lamb than about the destruction of Babylon (which has by the way already occurred more than once).

But, yeah, if people think they are the ones "called" by Whom they believe in, to administer "justice", then they have gravely misunderstood and their pomp and pride is exactly what Isaiah was talking about. Let's work instead toward the peace described in Isaiah 11.

Have a good day.

Peter Huff said:

"So you Daniel make all these negative claims about the Christian God."

What negative claim did I make about God?

None.

Peter Huff reads, into the statements of others, meanings which are not there.

Peter Huff argues in bad faith.

Peter Huff argues God's point of view, in the voice of God.

I have no use for such a debate with such a mixed up and confused person. Peter Huff stands in God's place and speaks for God. Why would I want to argue with that?

At the moment of his enlightenment the great Japanese Zen master Dogen exclaimed 'no mind and no body'! He futher elucidated - everything is merely a continuous flashing into existence from nothingness.

Each moment is in truth distinct and separate from every other moment - the eternal chain of cause and effect is motionless. Before him, the great Chan masters Huang Po and Hui Neng said the very same......

Zen never denies the paradox inherent in the fundamental truth - at least to the rational mind.

More about the importance of Energy in the Nothingness of Space as per Phil Berman in his column in this month's Astronmy Magazine:

"The tiny particles within all this empty space dart around wildly. Your body's protons jiggle frenetically at one-third the speed of light; the much larger molecules they inhabit merely break the sound barrier at a lethargic Mach 1.5, or 1,100 mph (1,800 km/h).

Time will tell if "nothing" can indeed explain everything.

Things are only slightly calmer in the frozen vacuums of distant space. QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) says "virtual particles" continuously snap, crackle, and pop in and out of this nothingness, though this has never been observed. Moreover, nearby energy fields might let evanescent particles borrow some energy and become permanently real, like Pinocchio. Indeed, the Big Bang, many believe, was a larger version of this phenomenon.

Some cosmologists think an unstable rogue vacuum — unlike ordinary, well-behaved vacuums — exploded in an expanding frenzy of energy and gravity to create the entire universe. Leftover bits of this theoretical "false vacuum" may forever "seed" countless other universes as well. It all sounds reasonable today: The cosmos' puzzling acceleration, which began 6 billion years ago, suggests runaway vacuum energy (dark energy) began exerting dominance over matter. Once responsible for the inflation that jump-started the infant cosmic expansion, negative vacuum pressure might be manifesting anew, now that gravity has grown too diluted to counteract it."

Justilthen,

"I have already said that I am open to the possibility that there is no "creative source". We do not know of a certain any of these subjects that we have been debating"

Agreed

"Do you accept the possibility that it may not have a source at all, but rather it may have always been?"

"Accepted, as a possibility. That does not make sense, in the rational and logical world that you prefer, if measured against the laws and assumptions that the 'manifest world' lives within.
Everything that is manifest has a beginning, a 'life', and an ending'. All things die"

Not true. Energy has no beginning or ending. Just transformation.

"I know of nothing in the physical universe that is immortal.
Do you?"

Energy

"Mind, consciousness, (you have your own words), spirit, is to me the immortal aspect, as creator source, that would allow in my view the recycling or the universe to go on and consciousness, incarnate in form, to inhabit it"

That's a cool though. I dig it. Possible. Logical.
No evidence to indicate that it is true.
But not a wacko theory like God in the Bible

"Why do you say that something had to have always existed?"

Infinite regression. If there's a source, the source must have a source, which in turn must have a source and on into infinity.

No?

Peter, Peter, Peter,

You are stilling expounding upon the mythical Adam and Eve?? Catholic high school students are even taught these two were myths as was the tree of knowledge and the talking snake. Might want to attend a bible study class!!!

Hello timmy2:

Forgive me. I was just gearing up to fire back at you for your last posts to me. It could still wait for a bit as I answer this question of yours.

I have already said that I am open to the possibility that there is no "creative source". We do not know of a certain any of these subjects that we have been debating.

"Do you accept the possibility that it may not have a source at all, but rather it may have always been?"

Accepted, as a possibility. That does not make sense, in the rational and logical world that you prefer, if measured against the laws and assumptions that the 'manifest world' lives within.
Everything that is manifest has a beginning, a 'life', and an ending'. All things die.
I know of nothing in the physical universe that is immortal.
Do you?
If everything dies, it's physical form ceases, then the whole of the physical universe by law would cease to exist.
Hypothetically, if you were to argue that the universe might continue as a 'reincarnation' of it's previous existence, then we have to contemplate the spiritual again. Or rather I do. You may not.
You have stated that we are energy/physical matter, and we are essentially, interchangable with all other forms of matter.
I agree with this regarding matter. Mind, consciousness, (you have your own words), spirit, is to me the immortal aspect, as creator source, that would allow in my view the recycling or the universe to go on and consciousness, incarnate in form, to inhabit it.

"But no matter what I think I have to imagine that because something had to have always existed, even if it's not this universe."
Why do you say that something had to have always existed?

"Do you accept this possibility that the universe and life has always existed?"

Now you have to define "life". This is essential.

Justilthen,

I accept the possibility that life, and the universe, may have a creative source.

Do you accept the possibility that it may not have a source at all, but rather it may have always been? A first principle that is hard to wrap your head around?

I certainly have a hard time contemplating the concept of something having always existed, how does one go about imagining that. But no matter what I think I have to imagine that because something had to have always existed, even if it's not this universe.

Do you accept this possibility that the universe and life has always existed?

I am open minded about both possibilities.
Are you?

Justilthen

Part two
Justilthen said:
"You have a very specific belief system"

The only belief system that I have is that beliefs should be formed for rational reasons. I can give you rational reasons for everything I believe. Challenge me. Pick out a specific thing that I believe, and make me give my reason for believing it. I can do that. can you? I know, you can but you won't for me.

BTW why is it that PARKERD1 finds me to be a polite and reasonable debater and you do not?

You said:
"It is a format that can be used to experience or expand or deepen the spiritual aspects of human consciousness as opposed to the logical or rational aspects."

The "spiritual aspects of human consciousness" do not need to be removed from logic and rationality. Quite the opposite. This is our fundamental difference. This is why I said that faith is voluntary irrationality. This notions that things spiritual can not be rational and logical is hogwash. I am extremely spiritual. All of my spirituality comes from using reason and logic to correlate the mystery of life, with what science knows about our physical world, with the emotions and feelings coursing through my being. Using reason and logic when wondering about it all takes nothing away from spirituality. How could it? Religion invented the idea of you needing to leave rationality and logic at the door to have true spirituality. It's a lie.

You said:
"what may be true for you by no means needs to be true for another"

You are the one who said that religion was fundamental to all humanity. So here you contradict yourself.

You also seem to arrogantly dismissing outright without even a good debate, Peters belief that only through Christ can one know God and escape eternal damnation. Why do you call him a loon now. At first you saw that he and I were at odds and this made you welcome him with open arms. Now all of a sudden, after the poor man opened up to you and told you what he believes, you are calling him a loon and dismissing his version of God outright? How do you know that Peter isn't on to something? Why don't you listen to him and hear him out. He was completely polite to you and now you call him a loon after just one response to you, where he was completely polite, and did not insult you personally in any way, and was open to more dialogue, but you shut him down and call him a loon. Are you not the biggest hypocrite this post has ever seen?

Justilthen said:
"Suck it Timmy"
"Peter is a loon"
Timmy is a Bun Bun

lol pal

Justilthen,

"I do not need your approval of my comments, timmy, to know that what I write is right, at least for me"

You did not make a statement about what is right for you. Your statement that "religion" has always been a fundamental necessity for man, was not a statement about what is right for you, it is a statement about what is true. And it is not true. Billions living without religion are proof that your statement was false. and rather insulting to all those who live without religion. We are missing something fundamental are we? How arrogant.

However your statement about spirituality having always been fundamental to man was correct. Spirituality is fundamental because the origin of life is unknown.

"You talk like you have a corner on the market of Truth"

No, just like someone who has been debating and studying this issue for four years and has been through al of the arguments many many times.

Justilthen said: "You speak down to others, and with disdain"

Justilthen said: "Suck it Timmy!"

Justilthen said: "Your reading comprehension is zero timmy"

Justilthen said: "Timmy is a Bun Bun"

Justilthen said: "Lets' form a club. Just say no to Timmy's"

I invite you to show me using personal attack language like that towards you ever. I critique bad ideas and beliefs held for bad reasons. You are the one who insults people directly.

Justilthen said:
"You are both certain to an arrogant level that you are right and the other wrong"

Abraham Lincoln was certain to an arrogant level that slavery was wrong. He would not even entertain the viewpoint that all men were not created equal. He dismissed it outright. So certain that He was right.

Same goes for Martin Luther King. Never entertained or listened to the other side's viewpoint that some races may be superior to others.

Same goes for the Suffragettes. Would not even entertain the notion that perhaps women did not have the right to vote.

Sometimes right sounds elitist to those who don't get it.

Peter,

Another way to look at it.

Limited = Flawed

if

The limitation is causal to the creature not being able to live up to the standard for which it was designed.

A lack of a barrier on a cliff is not the cause of me jumping off the cliff. It was bad decision making. Flawed reasoning and Judgement. Provided by all powerful creator of everything.

And just to update.

You have been unable to point out any inconsistency in my world view. You have pointed out the inconsistency in the world views of people who believe that the universe was not created, and people who believe that the universe is the source of life, and other atheist world views that you have come across, and I agree with you on their inconsistency, but you have not been able to point to any inconsistency in mine.

We have only established that I can not make sense of where life came from. Nothing inconsistent there. Because i don't pretend to be able to do that.

Timmy 1 Huff 0

Now to the second part. Can YOUR world view make sense of where life came from without being inconsistent?

No.
I have shown your proposed source of life, with it's particular attributes, to be not possible, logically.

Timmy 2 Huff 0

Conclusion:

Neither Timmy nor Peter can make sense of where life comes from.

However Timmy has a consistent world view, where as Peter has a logically impossible one.

Pending further debate of course, but that's where i see it right now.

Peace

PARKERD1

"Maybe you do have it, deep inside, but choose to ignore it"

I do have it deep down inside, the very same thing, just like "the others". I absolutely do have it and I am in touch withh it continually.

The difference between me and "the others" is that I don't pretend to know what it's source is. It's source is complete mystery to me. In fact, it's source is also a complete mystery to "the others" but they are pretending otherwise.

My reason for being on these threads is to point out that "pretending to know it's source" is a dangerous thing that causes us to be at odds for false reasons. If everyone admitted that they know nothing of it's source, then we could all find a way to reason out the best way to deal with this mystery.

We all feel that thing you are talking about. Deeply. Powerfully.
And because it is so powerful, it is a very dangerous thing to try to connect that thing to this:

Isaiah 13:13-16
13
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
 and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
 on the day of his fierce anger. 
14 Like a hunted gazelle,
 or like sheep with no one to gather them all will turn to their own people,
 and all will flee to their own lands. 
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through,
 and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces
 before their eyes: their houses will be plundered,
 and their wives ravished.

Spirituality good
Religion bad

Peace

timmy2:

"Yes. This time you got it right."

I do not need your approval of my comments, timmy, to know that what I write is right, at least for me. You talk like you have a corner on the market of Truth. You speak down to others, and with disdain. Do you not see that of yourself? I have to assume that you do not. Gain some humility.
You and peterhuff are the same. The positions are different clearly, but you each are absolutists. You are both certain to an arrogant level that you are right and the other wrong.
Elitists.

"Religion and spirituality are not the same, in fact they are at odds."

Part of your belief system. You have a very specific belief system. But I do not agree in all cases. I do not condemn religion as at odds with open spirituality necessarily, an evil or bad thing, on and on...
It is a format that can be used to experience or expand or deepen the spiritual aspects of human consciousness as opposed to the logical or rational aspects. It can also be a trainwreck.
There is no absolute rule, in my view, that colors all religions as "bad".
You do have that rule. That is okay. But as you say to Peter, perhaps, what may be true for you by no means needs to be true for another.

"You just keep talking to Peter Huff, and you will soon be the same. You will see the massive difference and disconnect between religion and spirituality. Keep talking to Peter. You will see that I make much more sense to you than he does. You will see that you and I have more in common that you and he."

:-)
Sometimes you make me smile.

You two are loons and are meant for each other. You are like an old married couple that just cannot put it down, addicted to the argument. (No disrespect, Peter. I know it is contrary to your beliefs, same sex marriage! :-) )
It serves to find places of agreement, except that you just seem to love being contrary.

Peace

Timmy,
I suppose that I am suggesting that others have discovered what one might call "positive energy" sources or "felt knowledge" or "inspiration" sources that, based on the criteria you have chosen to adopt, you choose to have nothing to do with.

Your choice works for you, but I couldn't say such "others" have knowledge you don't have. Maybe you do have it, deep inside, but choose to ignore it. I don't know--that is only for you to know. All the same, peace to you, and thanks again for the very kind tone, a rarity in this world. Deepest thanks.

PARKERD1

You wrote:

"I only hope you may recognize that others may have very real energized (meaning something they have felt within their being though not measurable by scientific instruments) sources of knowledge that yield for them peace, joy, encompassing feelings of love for humankind, empathy for the human condition, and a sustaining hope for a future that will be better than the present, which is what they want.

Others?
Are you saying that others have special knowledge that I do not have?

Timmy,
Precisely so. You get to establish your own criteria, for this test is also a "self test". You get what you want. I hold you no ill will for the logic that gets you what you want.

I only hope you may recognize that others may have very real energized (meaning something they have felt within their being though not measurable by scientific instruments) sources of knowledge that yield for them peace, joy, encompassing feelings of love for humankind, empathy for the human condition, and a sustaining hope for a future that will be better than the present, which is what they want. In any case, peace to you and yours.

Justilthen,

You said: "Spirituality has been fundamental to humanity"

Yes. This time you got it right.

Religion and spirituality are not the same, in fact they are at odds.
Spirituality is an on going open minded search in the face of the mystery of our existence. Religion ends the mystery and therefore ends true spirituality.

I am pro spirituality.
Anti religion.
I am anti religion precisely because of it's negative effect on spirituality.

You just keep talking to Peter Huff, and you will soon be the same. You will see the massive difference and disconnect between religion and spirituality. Keep talking to Peter. You will see that I make much more sense to you than he does. You will see that you and I have more in common that you and he.

Spirituality good.
Religion bad.
Religion does not aid spirituality, it subverts it.

PARKERD1

You said:
"But if a Being existed who knew enough to create a test that was absolutely unbiased, absolutely uncheatable, absolutely a "proving ground" sort of test that included learning along the way, then I would surmise that such a Being would know enough to hide the physical provable evidence of what happened before the test began, or the test would be flawed from the outset"

I suppose this is true, "if" such a being existed.
But this is not a reason to believe that such a being exists.

This still leaves us with no evidence of such a being existing and no reason to believe that it does.

timmy2:

"God is real in human consciousness since it's inception and is fundamental to all humans, in one form or another, I believe"

First I will further clarify the statement. Religions are specific, (to greater or lesser degrees) formulated systems of belief the 'supernatural'. They are extensions of spiritual belief and contemplation.
Spiritual belief and contemplation, and so then religions that look to solidify those concepts, have been part of humanity since the beginning of it's known history. It has been a constant throughout humanities history. It is a fundamental part of humanity.
You may negate it's value and reject god belief as baseless, but you are in the minority, historically.
Billions do NOT "live without God of any kind in their lives".

Second, my use of the term God here does not limit my statement to the christian form of god, but is meant to include all diverse forms of belief in the spiritual and supernatural in human societies through history.

Very few cultures through history have been atheistic.
Spirituality has been fundamental to humanity.
You do not need to be included in this, timmy. But apparently spirituality is important to you as well. Look at your focus on it here.

Peter said:

"As for the manufacturer, he has the right to limit the option he puts on his product. Just because he limits the options does not necessarily mean the product is flawed"

Correct. And if the limits he gives his product, are such that the product makes bad decisions, then it is illogical for him to punish the creature for having the limitations that he gave it.

Peter

"Their reasoning and judgment were limited is the point that I continue to make. Limited does not necessarily equate to flawed"

Sure it does. If decision making tools (tools designed to make decisions with) are limited in such a manner as to allow for bad decisions, then the decision making tools are flawed, or the creature with inefficient decision making tools is flawed.

PETER: "With the decision to eat came the opening up of reasoning between right and wrong"

No. The reasoning between right and wrong preceded the decision to eat. Reasoning between right and wrong is what lead to the decision to eat. It was obviously faulty reasoning.

PETER: "Q. Do you understand that something can be perfect and yet limited? Please explain your answer"

If I create something that is limited, I can not then punish that thing for being limited. That would be unloving.

Peter said:

"You have to decide on which option you take"

Yes I know. And who gave me the reasoning tools that I use make that decision?

Timmy,
You gave a reasonable response that what I suggested was "one of many many possibilities". I agree, from the perspective of one who uses exclusively scientific knowledge and processes of discovery. But if a Being existed who knew enough to create a test that was absolutely unbiased, absolutely uncheatable, absolutely a "proving ground" sort of test that included learning along the way, then I would surmise that such a Being would know enough to hide the physical provable evidence of what happened before the test began, or the test would be flawed from the outset.

As it stands, we get to sort things out for ourselves and decide what works for us. During the process, if we find peace and deep loving relationships plus a way to view others not as threats but as others who are loved and mean just as much in the universe as ourselves, then we can act accordingly.

Peter:

"Life either originated by chance or by God. Do you have a further option?"

Yes. I already told you. "always been" is an option.

It is you who has made a presupposition that life began at some point as opposed to it having always existed which is an option. What is your proof that life originated Peter? You weren't there. All you have is a book written by bronze age nomadic goat herders who created a logical fallacy.

I do not consider "random chance" an option. Or at the very least, a highly improbable and illogical one.

For me there are only two reasonable options.
1) creative source
2) always been

Both are on the table. There is no evidence for either.

Nothing inconsistent here Peter.

Timmy, I have to go but I will check in on Wednesday again. Please answer my other questions if you feel that the first is done with. We will keep the one on free will open for now if you have more to say.

As for the manufacturer, he has the right to limit the option he puts on his product. Just because he limits the options does not necessarily mean the product is flawed.

TIMMY: "Free will allowed Eve to decide for herself.... Free will simply allows us to proceed after we have made the decision with our reasoning and judgement."

God gave them limited understanding. He did not create them omniscient. He wanted them to depend on Him for sound judgment, hence the warning. If they had depended on Him instead of their limited knowledge they would still have been perfect, and yet limited in knowledge. Their reasoning and judgment were limited is the point that I continue to make. Limited does not necessarily equate to flawed.

With the decision to eat came the opening up of reasoning between right and wrong. Before they only knew the good that God said and were in right or good standing with God, perfect, but limited before Him.

TIMMY: "God gave poor Eve faulty reasoning and judgement. And then punished all of humanity for it? This God can not be both perfect and loving. He can not exist as you describe him."

Well Timmy, limited is not necessarily faulty. I can design a car that only has the ability to attain speeds of 100 kph or I can design one that can attain speeds of 180 kph. Just because Adams ability to make right decisions is based on another does not mean that he cannot make those right decisions, even if his understanding and reasoning were limited which they were.

Adam could make the decision to trust God and live or rely on his own limited understanding and judgment which did not know evil until he decided.

Do you assume that evil was within the grasp of Adam before the Fall? Do you assume that Adam was able to reason and judge what evil was before the Fall? He did not know evil before deciding to disobey God. He was created perfect, not knowing evil. His understanding and judgment were limited.

Q. Do you understand that something can be perfect and yet limited? Please explain your answer.

Timmy, you went and blew it. I was just in the process of signing out when I saw your new post.

TIMMY: "Your last post is entirely based on the presupposition that God exists and I have already proven that the God you propose can not exist by logical fallacy."

No you have not proved this.

Yes, it is based on the presupposition that God exists for He has made Himself known to me by His mercy and grace, through His Word, by His Spirit, in His Son.

As for the logical fallacy, without God how do we even get logic by a universe that supposedly came about by chance (although you are undecided on that one it seems to be the general consensus) Chance cannot produce consistency. Life either originated by chance or by God. Do you have a further option?

TIMMY: "Free will is ONLY the absence of a barrier to action, not a decision making tool."

You have to decide on which option you take. Adam and Eve were limited in understanding by design, but they still had the ability to chose one way or the other. They did not have a knowledge of evil, but God warned them that by taking of the tree of knowledge they would know what evil was and as a consequence die.

Peter I'm sorry but we've been here before and it's check-mate.

A manufacturer can not blame it's product for being faulty.

Logical fallacy.

The manufacturer is responsible for everything that the product does wrong. There is simply no way around that.

PARKERD1

"I used a term that was an attempt to be "something like," which is why I put the quotations around it. A better term is "intelligence" or call it what you will--initial essence of being, pre-spirit being"

I can imagine such a thing being possible. But I have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true. Only one of many many possibilities.

Peter said:

"Perfect tools, but limited in ability"

Perfect decision making tools can not make a bad decision.
a person can have the free will to make a bad decision, but if they have perfect decision making tools, they will make the right decision. This does not make them an atomaton. This makes them people with free will, but perfect decision making tools.

If they had flawed decision making tools, this is where their free will could get them into trouble.

Peter,

You said:

"Adam and Eve were free to sin or not to sin"

And chose to sin in spite of fair warning. This shows that Adam and Eve had bad judgement and reasoning. Yes they had free will, this is what allowed them to act upon their bad decision made with faulty reasoning and judgement given to them by God.

PETER: Free will is not having your will predisposed of in one direction or the other.

Yes. Adam and Eve had the free will to choose to eat the apple or not to eat the apple. Their decision was not predetermined by God. They made it themselves. Where did they get their decision making tools? (reason and judgement)

Peter, are you suggesting that free will and reasoning and judgement are the same thing?

Timmy,
Very good points. I used a term that was an attempt to be "something like," which is why I put the quotations around it. A better term is "intelligence" or call it what you will--initial essence of being, pre-spirit being.

Yeah, much bad happens. Much good also happens, and many people have found great peace in their inner self, as well as a way to look at others without envy, malice, begrudging, anger, belittling, bitterness, or fear. I don't necessarily have that every day, but I find it most days and also find "knowledge" that is greater than when I started out the day, little by little, some of that having come through what I deeply feel was taught to me from outside of my own deliberations or reading. But one must get that for oneself.

You are kind. I thank you for that, and for your thoughtful point of view.

Justilthen said:

"God is real in human consciousness since it's inception and is fundamental to all humans, in one form or another, I believe"

This statement seems ignorant of the fact that billions live without God of any kind in their lives. How could it possibly be "fundamental to all humans" if billions live without it?

Hello ParkerD1

You said:
"I would ask, what if an "embryonic" part of you always existed in this always-existing universe?"

Embryonic is a biology term. Embryos live inside of humans

You said:

"But what if there were a way to find greater knowledge (the kind that helps us get along with people), greater peace, greater joy? What if we don't have to do this all on our own, sans help? Personally, I very much appreciate the help"

Me too. Do you know of any such knowledge?
We could really use it right about now the way the world is going. I hope somebody discovers such knowledge soon.

Of course many many people have claimed to have found such knowledge, but their claims have no credibility and their knowledge has been greatly flawed. Such claims have actually turned out to be dangerous and war causing.

We're all still looking.

Part 2 - Final thoughts for the day

TIMMY: "Free will is not the thing that makes you decide to do things. It is only the absence of a barrier to you acting on the decisions that you make with the tools that God gave you. Flawed decisions. Flawed tools."

You are confusing functionality and design with ability.

Free will is not predisposed or programmed to act one way or the other, yes. Adam and Eve were created perfect yet limited - perfect tools and design but not unlimited use. Their Maker told them they had freedom to eat of any tree in the garden but one. He set the boundaries for their good, out of love. Satan came and created the alternative option.

TIMMY: "God can be loving and not perfect."

Wrong, for without perfection, without flaw He would not be God.

TIMMY: "But he can not be both perfect and loving. Because that would mean that he gave you faulty faculties on purpose, and then punishes you for the decisions you make with your faulty faculties."

Perfect tools, but limited in ability. Their will was perfectly free to choose, a clean slate, uninfluenced, with two options and consequences. Their minds were limited in their understanding. They did not know all things, therefore they were dependent on the relational intimacy with God in looking out for their best interests.

A bird has the ability to fly because it was created that way. A man has not. He was created differently. Man was created for God, not God created for man - the hook in the sky only to be used when man feels helpless.

With the decision to do wrong came the understanding of evil and the end of perfection as God had said it would. Now the knowledge of good was mixed with the knowledge of evil.

God imposed a penalty for the decision as He warned He would.

Peter,

Your last post is entirely based on the presupposition that God exists and I have already proven that the God you propose can not exist by logical fallacy.

Free will is ONLY the absence of a barrier to action, not a decision making tool. Free will allowed Eve to decide for herself if she wanted to disobey God, which she decided to do. But free will is not what people use to come to decisions. We use our reasoning and judgement for that. Free will simply allows us to proceed after we have made the decision with our reasoning and judgement. God gave poor Eve faulty reasoning and judgement. And then punished all of humanity for it? This God can not be both perfect and loving. He can not exist as you describe him.

Final thoughts Timmy, Part 1 (-8

I'm taking it that this is Question 7, phrased in the form of a statement that you want me to untangle?

TIMMY: "God is perfect so he could not have made humans flawed by mistake. He must have done it on purpose. And if he made us flawed on purpose, then he can not be loving if he punishes us for being flawed when he made us that way.

You are mistaken. God did not make man flawed, but perfect, yet limited. Man was flawless in that he was without disease, free to live forever more, in a relationship with the Creator yet with free will, the ability to choose. Limited means that man was not made omniscient. Just without flaws. The flaws came with sin or rebellion. They were the penalty that God warned of. They are the penalty of deciding what is (apparently or seemingly) good apart from God.

TIMMY: "I'm way ahead of you Peter.
Free will is simply the absence of a barrier to doing what you want."

Yes, Adam and Eve were not predisposed of or programmed to choose one way or the other. They were free to choose either, but with consequences as explained by God. That is ultimate love, allowing for choice. But it is ultimate justice in punishing wrongful action. To be free to do anything is not freedom but anarchy.

As a result of the Fall you, Timmy, are no longer free not to sin. Adam and Eve were free to sin or not to sin, but now you have inherited the nature of your great, great, great, great...grandparents.

TIMMY: "You still need faculties of reason and logic with which to make the decisions that free will is going to allow you to act on. And these faculties of reason and logic were made by God the creator. If these faculties of reason and logic, lead us to make bad decisions, then they must be flawed."

Free will is not having your will predisposed of in one direction or the other. God told them the consequences of deciding what the standard of good apart from Himself - death.

Hello peterhuff:

JUSTILLTHEN: "I am not a practicing christian though I keep Jesus close to my heart. I also keep the Buddha close to my heart, and Krisna and Siva..."

"You are trying to cover all the bases."

Yes, I suspected that we would part company here. What a shame! All for a name and the assumption that God is limited in form and message.

"So the point I want to make is that it is not logical to believe that all these people are equally valid in their understanding and revelation of God and in fact they do not say the same things about God."

You make an assumption here, (essential to the christian ideal of the exclusivity of it's spiritual validity), that I do not make. Namely that there is only one currently valid message from God which is the Bible. This is a control issue, pure and simple. And a minimizing and limiting of God, which to me is not only Infinite but is Incomprehensible. To suggest that God has only shown Himself in the pages of the Bible defies reason and logic, negates the individuals personal relationship with our Creator, and homogonizes Gods interactions with diverse cultural worldviews.
Nothing in the manifest world is the same, so far as we have seen. All is individuated and utterly unique. Each individuals relationship with God would be unique and have completely differing requirements.
This is true throughout the created world.

God is real in human consciousness since it's inception and is fundamental to all humans, in one form or another, I believe. Some here espouse an atheistic philosophy but appear to have regard for morality and basic human virtues and commonalities of goodness and right. They have their forms of spirituality, in my eyes. As we all do.

God is not limited, and His message is not limited. Indeed the Presence of Divine can be seen in all things.
And I find that Presence in all great spiritual Ways. Because God is in all great spiritual Ways. Because God is in everything.

I am not one that believes that God cares what you call Him, just that you do. And one will, in their own time.
You can believe that there is only one Key to Heaven, and that is beautiful. But the fact is that billions of people find God through the avenues that God has made available to them, because everyone sees, and needs to perceive, differently.
For them the Bible may be exactly NOT the way. We do not know.

Hello Peter:

You said:

"You on the other hand start from yourself as the highest authority for you reason that with your own logic and understanding you can make sense of truth and life"

No I don't. Again with the assuming.

You said:

"You compare one subjective opinion against another and come away with the one that best fits your starting presuppositions"

What starting presuppositions?

You said"

"you are the final judge, the ultimate arbitrator, the standard you use to judge everything. With your limited knowledge you weigh the evidence and pronounce your verdict"

This is true of all of us.

YOU: "As we have discussed before, your subjective opinions have no certainty to them. You can never be 100% sure. You are always skeptical about truth claims"

True.

YOU: "The thing about your whole starting point is that all the evidence you weigh you fit to your starting presuppositions, that God is highly unlikely.

Not true. I am neutral until the evidence points me in one direction.

YOU: "There is no such thing as neutrality. You have been swayed by your nature"

Baseless claim. Not true. I am neutral, until I am swayed by evidence.

Timmy,
You may perhaps look again at this thread, so having just read your last post, I venture to respond. I liked your logic, and the kind tone. I appreciated reading your comments.

I would ask, what if an "embryonic" part of you always existed in this always-existing universe? In other words, what if a Divine Creator did not "create" you out of nothing, but rather used the DNA/birthing process to form your "embryonic essence" into a physical body, His interest being to allow you to progress more readily than as that "embryonic essence". What if our progress is His major aim? You might say, "I can get along and am getting along fine without knowing anything about such things." Perhaps. But what if there were a way to find greater knowledge (the kind that helps us get along with people), greater peace, greater joy? What if we don't have to do this all on our own, sans help? Personally, I very much appreciate the help.

Regardless of your point of view, I wish you well.

Continuing Timmy,

TIMMY: "He made humans.
He made them flawed
And then he punishes them for being flawed."

Yes, you have it right as to your first statement, no to the other two.

He made man perfect, but limited in his knowledge and understanding. Man was made with the potential for eternal and everlasting life and fellowship with God, but also with a free will in which man was able to choose. A robot does not have free will. It does what it is programmed to do, whereas God made Adam and Eve with the ABILITY to choose for themselves. As their Creator He gave them dominion over His creation with the mandate to fill the earth and multiple - something that a same-sex relationship, BTW, cannot do - and set the limits to fellowship with Him. If they choose to eat of the tree of fruit of knowledge of good and evil they were warned, they would die. They would disrupt the fellowship with a loving God by their decision to know the difference between good and evil. Evil is doing contrary to the nature and character of God.

Now the difference between Adam and Eve and you and me is that we no longer have free will. Our wills are always influenced by our natures, our desires, our predisposition to sin. We have inherited the nature of our rebellious first parents.

That is why you need to be born again, given a new nature in order to have intimate fellowship with this loving God. God is pure and holy. To accept anything less than purity in His presence would be to compromise His glory and honor and nature - His very name.

That is why man needs a Savior, someone who can meet all the righteous requirements of God, step in our place in meeting His penalty for sin and give us a new nature, the power over sin, a nature united in God; Christ in us, the hope of glory; joint heirs with the Son, adopted and accepted by the Father!

This new nature that God gives, a new spiritual nature (one that was lost in the rebellion) is the nature of His Son for He identifies Christ in our place - bringing us back into intimate fellowship with the triune God and breathes the life of Christ into us - the eternal life of His Son. (Romans 6:2-3; 6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:10; Romans 5:17; John 15; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Matthew 16:25; Romans 7:5-6.

Hi Timmy,

A little sleep makes a difference!

TIMMY: "I am open minded. I don't form beliefs until I have reason to believe a given theory. Until then, I leave unanswered questions unanswered."

But you do form beliefs based on your core presuppositions. Your reason to believe depends on where you start from, your basic assumptions, your foundation - your very nature. As a Christian and by His grace I start with God and His revelation of Himself as the highest authority I can turn to, believing Him to be what He has told me about Himself. From Him I can make sense of this world.

You on the other hand start from yourself as the highest authority for you reason that with your own logic and understanding you can make sense of truth and life. You compare one subjective opinion against another and come away with the one that best fits your starting presuppositions - you are the final judge, the ultimate arbitrator, the standard you use to judge everything. With your limited knowledge you weigh the evidence and pronounce your verdict.

As we have discussed before, your subjective opinions have no certainty to them. You can never be 100% sure. You are always skeptical about truth claims.

TIMMY: "I can not prove that your God does not exist. But I have reason enough to believe that He does not exist. I have so many reasons it would take weeks to list them all. The sum total of all of these reasons along with the one insurmountable logical fallacy that I will point out now, bring me to be about as certain as you can be about anything, that your God does not exist."

The thing about your whole starting point is that all the evidence you weigh you fit to your starting presuppositions, that God is highly unlikely. You build on what you choose. But you still retain a wee bit of knowledge about God, and yet no intimate knowledge or relationship with Him (Romans 1:18-21, 25).

There is no such thing as neutrality. You have been swayed by your nature. (Romans 8:5, 7-8; Ephesians 2:1-3; Galatians 5:16-21)

TIMMY: "Your God is perfect, all powerful, and loving."

Yes He is!

John 3:18;

John 3: 11-21- A single attestation in the NT making it very suspect as being an original saying by the simple preacher man. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

"From Father Raymond Brown [The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible 20. pp. 135-37] provides a typically cautious introduction to these issues in general and this case in particular:

The Nicodemus scene is our first introduction to the Johannine discourse. It is the first oral exposition in John of the revelation brought by Jesus, and in capsule form it gives the principal themes of that revelation.

Historicity
When we try to think of this scene occurring in the ministry of Jesus, there are many problems that must be faced, not the least of which is setting. "

Hi Timmy,

My apologies. It is late, or early. You are right. I did not read your one post properly. I will leave it for now.

BTW, are you still doing comedy? Where abouts? Toronto?

Hello Frederic2,

FRED: "I will not enter into the meaningless discussion with the ever bible quoting Peter Huff (I admire Timmy, with a little tongue in cheek, for his effort), a friendly, but utterly naive creationist, who, whatever argument you might introduce, will answer with the "all-answering" "god did it"- meme. And logically, you cannot prove the validity of the bible by quoting from that very bible. It means nothing."

Again, you now stand in judgment over God's Word, but one day His Word will stand in judgment of you in one of two ways, acquittal or guilty.

There again you will naturally defer to your highest authority, which is...? Yes, you are the expert!!! You understand how things truly are, that is until your worldview is questioned. I also admire Timmy, for the courage to stand up for what he believes in, even though it is wrong and he cannot make sense of it. You are not willing to examine your foundational principles, Frederic. So be it.

It is easy to dismiss something, without much thought, but it is harder to defend it unless it makes sense. If it is wrong show why and expect a rebuttal.

And the reason I am replying to your post is because you warranted it by your comments. As for the part about me "killing" you, it is not my place or desire and the furthers thing from my mind. You are created in the image of God and therefore I am to go the extra mile for you. I'm willing to do that. I don't see myself as having malice towards you. I don't know you. I wish you the best.

But anyone who comes on an "On Faith" forum must surely expect their position to be inspected and questioned. Do I not also have the right to do that with you, just as you have the right to ignore or refuse my post?

I am interested in the truth and I try to speak the truth. I try not to mince words in exposing a lie. Our eternal destiny is at stake according to the God of the Bible (John 3:18; Romans 8:1-11). If you choose not to listen, that is between you and God. I can do nothing about it but to pray for you.

Dear heavenly Father, Sovereign Lord, I ask, I plea, for your mercy and grace to be shown to Frederic. Open her eyes Lord that she may truly see, and in seeing believe that she may be saved, in Jesus name!

Peter,

This might help you a little bit.

I do not know the origin of the universe or life.
I only see two logical options
1) Creative source
2) It has always been

Both options are on the table for me. Both plausible. Both logical.

However, the creative source option brings up the problem of infinite regression of course, so even though it is possible that our universe has a creative source, you would then have to either explain what the source of the source is, or give the source the attribute of having always been. Which again is possible, but that then makes it possible that this universe may have always been.

Both options are on the table. There is no evidence for either.

I am open minded. I don't form beliefs until I have reason to believe a given theory. Until then, I leave unanswered questions unanswered.

That is an honest world view.

Here is my belief about your God and my reason for having it.

I can not prove that your God does not exist. But I have reason enough to believe that He does not exist. I have so many reasons it would take weeks to list them all. The sum total of all of these reasons along with the one insurmountable logical fallacy that I will point out now, bring me to be about as certain as you can be about anything, that your God does not exist.

Your God is perfect, all powerful, and loving.

He made humans.
He made them flawed
And then he punishes them for being flawed.

God is perfect so he could not have made humans flawed by mistake. He must have done it on purpose. And if he made us flawed on purpose, then he can not be loving if he punishes us for being flawed when he made us that way.

I'm way ahead of you Peter.
Free will is simply the absence of a barrier to doing what you want. You still need faculties of reason and logic with which to make the decisions that free will is going to allow you to act on. And these faculties of reason and logic were made by God the creator. If these faculties of reason and logic, lead us to make bad decisions, then they must be flawed.

Free will is not the thing that makes you decide to do things. It is only the absence of a barrier to you acting on the decisions that you make with the tools that God gave you. Flawed decisions. Flawed tools.

God can be loving and not perfect.
But he can not be both perfect and loving. Because that would mean that he gave you faulty faculties on purpose, and then punishes you for the decisions you make with your faulty faculties.

John 3: 19-21 A single attestation in the NT making it very suspect as being an original saying by the simple preacher man.

"From Father Raymond Brown [The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible 20. pp. 135-37] provides a typically cautious introduction to these issues in general and this case in particular:

The Nicodemus scene is our first introduction to the Johannine discourse. It is the first oral exposition in John of the revelation brought by Jesus, and in capsule form it gives the principal themes of that revelation.

Historicity
When we try to think of this scene occurring in the ministry of Jesus, there are many problems that must be faced, not the least of which is setting. "

John 8:12

"Gerd Ludemann [Jesus, 137] accepts the form of the saying in Matt 5:14a as authentic, but considers the form in which it occurs in John 8:12 "unthinkable in the mouth of the historical Jesus" [p. 485]. While he accepts John 8:12 was taken from the tradition available to the evangelist, Ludemann [p. 495] points to the evangelist's hand in the wider use of this idea in John (1:4-9; 3:19-21; 9:5; 12:35-36). Thom 24:3 is considered inauthentic [p. 602].

Peter

After reading the rest of you posts I do not know how to respond.
You continue to argue with you own assumptions of what I believe which you haven't got a single one right yet.

All we have established, is that I do not know where life came from. And therefore I can not make sense of where life came from.

Peter:

TIMMY: "Okay, we have established that Timmy cannot make sense of where life came from"

TIMMY: "Yes we have."

"Not according to your first post. You said, and I quote, "I don't know.""

I don't know. I can not make sense of where life came from. When I said "yes we have", I was agreeing with your statement that "we have established that Timmy cannot make sense of where life came from". I am agreeing with you that I can not make sense of the universe, where is the inconsistency?

"Your worldview is showing itself for what it is - inconsistent. One minute it is one thing, the next the opposite. It changes and mutates as it is being investigated"

None of this is true. Peter you have to stop making so many assumptions. You seem to know nothing of my world view. Stop asserting what you think I believe and then arguing with that. Find out what I believe. And then argue with that.

PETER: "Let's define terms so we know what we are speaking about. You believe that the "Universe" is your creator, is that correct?"

No.
Stop assuming!
You make an ass out of U and me.
Everything you wrote after this, all nine paragraphs are moot due to your false assumptions of what I believe. What a waste of bandwidth.

You need to ask more questions about my belief and stop making statements about it because you don't know what you are talking about.

I better make this the final post of the night Timmy. Unfortunately I am working the next two days so I am not sure if I will have the time to post. But keep answering those question and I will do the same when I find time. BTW, where are your questions. Are they the six you already gave me or do you want to include those questions as all part of the first one?

ME: "So these are things you need to determine in your worldview. How does it justify right?"

TIMMY: "It doesn't."

Okay, again an admission that you cannot justify "right." Would you say then that from that statement you cannot make sense of this question?

TIMMY: "My worldview accepts that we do not have enough information to know "absolute right". We are therefore left with a combination of experience, interaction with society, the laws of society, and instinct."

Okay, whose experience, whose laws, whose instinct?

I'm almost ready to post my second point. Are you willing to concede yet? (-8

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/search/label/presuppositionalism

Hi Timmy,

TIMMY: "Oh come now Peter, you know you were soundly defeated in our last debate. Don't make me go for the kill shot now. I was going to let this one play out a little first."

Please do! Post away, but before you sign out let's get through the ten questions apiece, just for the share entertainment of seeing how the two worldviews can make sense of things.

To continue,

ME: "Even though you do not agree with the Christian worldview, (due to your rebellion and hostility to God Timmy) it does answer where man came from"

TIMMY: "Yes it does explain where man came from.
But it's explanation is not credible, absurd, and clearly lifted from multiple ancient myths that preceded it, as well as astrology. Nothing could be more obvious."

Assertion upon assertion. Put some more straw in that straw man. Keep explaining yourself and answering my questions as I am doing yours.

It does make sense of where life came from. Your worldview cannot. As for the ancient myth card, it has been used before without any conclusive evidence either way. You would have to show me where these myths preceded Christianity. The case is just as easily made from my perspective that these myths followed the Christian story. Either way we were not there. But God was!

ME: "He was created by God. That is consistent with what we observe when we observe man and seek God's revelation of Himself in Scripture"

TIMMY: "Not to me. I find that notion absurd."

True. (1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 1:18-25; 1 Timothy 4:7)

Q4. Can you point to an objective standard or reference point to make sense of anything? Please save this one until you have answered my other questions.

Justilthen,

there appear quite a few points we seem to agree on.

As to the left vs. right hemisphere: There is quite an amount of research going on as to the location and function of "religion" neurons (serving superstition etc. etc. as well).

Independently from this question, I do not think that you can attribute religion to the right, atheism to the left hemisphere. On the contrary, religion, "god" being a human "intellectual" construct, belongs much more to a derailed activity of the left hemisphere than to the more global, holistic, intuitive (right hemisphere) part of our being. Btw, in latest research the strict separation of activities of the hemispheres is not valid anymore. There are tendencies, priorities, but no clear separation.

Personally, as an artist I find it fascinating how the two parts interact all the time. And as a teacher, I use the "left" (language, structure) and the "right" (example) in order to activate both "left" and "right" in my students.

I will not enter into the meaningless discussion with the ever bible quoting Peter Huff (I admire Timmy, with a little tongue in cheek, for his effort), a friendly, but utterly naive creationist, who, whatever argument you might introduce, will answer with the "all-answering" "god did it"- meme. And logically, you cannot prove the validity of the bible by quoting from that very bible. It means nothing.

Once you introduce the joker "god" into your intellectual deck of cards, there is not a single question or contradiction conceivable anymore which can not be covered ("explained") by this joker, ending all differentiating discussion. The joker covers everything including the contrary of everything.

This would be a harmless game, if it would not, even in a friendly guise, convey the concept of "sin" (damnation, annihilation) for those who maintain their brain above the religious inundation. With Peter Huff's ever so friendly arguments, he would "kill" me (eternal hell fire, or even literally) with the purest of consciences. It certainly would not be a first time, lol! (Simply "god's will").

Okay Timmy, don't be too hasty to put up your point in making sense of all this just yet. We are not finished with this line of thought. Let's test your assumptions further.

TIMMY: "Okay, we have established that Timmy cannot make sense of where life came from"

TIMMY: "Yes we have."

Not according to your first post. You said, and I quote, "I don't know."

Your worldview is showing itself for what it is - inconsistent. One minute it is one thing, the next the opposite. It changes and mutates as it is being investigated. As I said before you cannot make sense of things. But let's push on.

ME: "So he has a worldview that asserts that we are not created by a Creator"

TIMMY: "No he doesn't."

Okay, so you are not asserting, you know for certain and you know your "Creator?"

Let's define terms so we know what we are speaking about. You believe that the "Universe" is your creator, is that correct?

Okay, now to go deeper. Is the universe a Mind? Does the Universe have a personality? If so, how do you know this for certain? Has the "Universe" revealed this to you in some tangible way, or even that life came from "It" alone? Are you the determiner of what is and how it came to be or do you just speak for the Universe from a subjective standpoint?

The problem I have with your line of thought is that the general consensus is that the universe had a beginning. So does that now change your belief to multiple universes? Are you going against the consensus of what I still believe is the majority scientific view today (i.e. - the Big Bang)?

It must be nice to know so much about the universe to say it has always been in existence. Very objective for a subjective human being, and without the universe speaking to you and making this declaration in a tangible form!

So now I have a dilemma in testing what is true, which scientific voice is speaking the truth, which one is THE objective, absolute standard? Do I believe you or some other subjective human? Ummm?

ME: "but he has no justification for why that is so in the departments of metaphysics and epistemology on the issue of origins of life"

TIMMY: "Moot due to wrong assumption made above."

First you have to establish that your evidence is objective/impartial and true otherwise it is just an assertion.

I put it that God is the Creator on the impossibility of the contrary. Without an objective, absolute, unchanging standard and reference point it is all subjective human assertions. You were not there. You do not see every aspect of every fact. You did not create the facts so that you cannot follow there chain of events back in time to when life began. So unless we have a spoken word from the Creator you cannot make sense of whose speculation makes sense. Has the Universe spoken to you?

Peter said:

"That is why I like chatting Timmy. He will stick his head on the chopping block. He goes into the frey with arms swinging, not realizing he is up against God's double edged sword"

Oh come now Peter, you know you were soundly defeated in our last debate. Don't make me go for the kill shot now. I was going to let this one play out a little first.

To continue on your thoughts Justillthen,

JUSTILLTHEN: "I am not a practicing christian though I keep Jesus close to my heart. I also keep the Buddha close to my heart, and Krisna and Siva. And Mother Teresa, Benizir Bhutto, Rumi, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Archbishop Tutu, and Lao Tzu. And well more."

You are trying to cover all the bases.

Okay, this is where we part company, and I will try to explain why. You and I both use logic and reason to communicate, and without it there would be no communication and no understanding. So the point I want to make is that it is not logical to believe that all these people are equally valid in their understanding and revelation of God and in fact they do not say the same things about God.

In logic two things cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense when they contradict each other. You cannot have two truths that contradict each other. God cannot both be personal and impersonal at the same time. He cannot be the one and only true living God and there be many true and living gods (John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6). Something has to give and the question is what is the truth? Now you claim that Jesus is close to your heart, but the question is which Jesus, or which god? (1 Corinthians 11:3-4 or Galatians 1:6-10, and the list goes on) Who is your Jesus? Is He the same Jesus of Scripture?

JUSTILLTHEN: "I am clear, upon reading your posts to your friend timmy, that we would do better, in debating spiritual assumptions, to stay general. We could find great agreement in generalizations. God Is Love. God Is Great."

Get as deep as you want. I'll go as far as God has given me understanding through His Word and by the leading of His Spirit to go. I agree to both those statements, that God is a God of love and that He is great, but also that God is just and God is righteous and God is holy and God is pure and God is good and God is omniscient and God is eternal and God is unchanging to say a few more. Yes they are generalization, but why are they so?

JUSTILLTHEN: "Please do not try to convert me to your belief system. Been there. Love Jesus. Love God. Am not "christian". Won't be."

I cannot convert you. All I am able to do is point you to the truth. What you do with it is up to God and up to you (1 Corinthians 2:10-16; 3:5-11 or 2 Corinthians 12, 14-17; 5:17-21).

JUSTILLTHEN: "But I would love to dialogue with you if it comes up.
I am happy that you are here, for the time that you are."

Thank you. I hope you still feel that way when all is said and done!

JUSTILLTHEN: "Peace."

Peace comes from a right standing before God in being set free from what binds us, our sin, its power and His judgment upon it. Blessings are in Christ Jesus the matchless Lord! (Ephesians 1:3-11)

Peter,

"What is bad for any country is when a person cannot justify what they believe because there is no standard except as seen through their own eyes"

Hear hear.

"Can you imagine a society where everyone did as they saw fit?"

That would be terrible. I would recommend that such a society get themselves a parliment and some laws.

"So these are things you need to determine in your worldview. How does it justify right?"

It doesn't.My worldview accepts that we do not have enough information to know "absolute right". We are therefore left with a combination of experience, interaction with society, the laws of society, and instinct.

Peter

"Okay, we have established that Timmy cannot make sense of where life came from"

Yes we have.

"So he has a worldview that asserts that we are not created by a Creator"

No he doesn't.

"but he has no justification for why that is so in the departments of metaphysics and epistemology on the issue of origins of life"

Moot due to wrong assumption made above.

"Even though you do not agree with the Christian worldview, (due to your rebellion and hostility to God Timmy) it does answer where man came from"

Yes it does explain where man came from.
But it's explanation is not credible, absurd, and clearly lifted from multiple ancient myths that preceded it, as well as astrology. Nothing could be more obvious.

"He was created by God. That is consistent with what we observe when we observe man and seek God's revelation of Himself in Scripture"

Not to me. I find that notion absurd.

Timmy: 1 Huff: 0

Hello Justillthen,

Nice to chat with you! Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully you will still feel that sense of acceptance after we discuss our views and where they come from? May I abbreviate you title to save time?

JUSTILLTHEN: "Welcome to this board. I have just come back in to check in and see that you have taken up the good fight against an old combatant, it seems."

Yes, Timmy and I have engaged in discussion before. I have not seen him post for awhile.

JUSTILLTHEN: "I laid it down with timmy. Got nowhere interesting. You jumped right in, as if on cue.
Are there cues?"

If you want answers you need to get down to the basics and climb into the trenches, so when someone asserts something it is time to dig deeper or cut the bull.

Most of the time the atheist will not answer for he does not have the answers. The sideline is to divert the discussion. An offense along a different tangent is better than a defense and counting of the casualties. The offense along these tangents is to avoid the stick issues and accountability on their part. That is why I like chatting Timmy. He will stick his head on the chopping block. He goes into the frey with arms swinging, not realizing he is up against God's double edged sword (Hebrews 4:16 or 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). But I like Timmy because he will attempt an answer and try to make sense of his muddles. Most of the time the atheist plays hide and seek. You have to look hard to find an answer. So in this respect I appreciate Timmy's willingness to engage. I admire him and his honesty. And that last sentence I say without being ironic, sarcastic or playful with my words.

Each of us holds to a worldview that attempts to make sense of reality. So we test it to see how it performs. Without the Christian God life does not make sense. If you are interested why I say these things please look up John 3:19-21 or John 8:12 or Colossians 2:2-4 or Psalms 36:9, for in His light we see light, in His knowledge we gain understanding, in His wisdom we are truly wise.

JUSTILLTHEN: "So that I am clear, (if you have not been attentive in reviewing my posts), I am not a 'believer' if that term means 'christian'. I love Jesus, but I think most of christianity is far lost from what Jesus taught."

I think you are right on that account, but that does not rule out that we can know and have a relationship with Him. The danger is, as always not worshiping Him in spirit and in truth, for these are the kind of worshipers God seeks (John 4:23-24).

Timmy's answer to my first question,

"Q1. Where did life originate/start from?"

TIMMY: "I don't know."

Christianity 1 Timmy 0

Okay, we have established that Timmy cannot make sense of where life came from. So he has a worldview that asserts that we are not created by a Creator, but he has no justification for why that is so in the departments of metaphysics and epistemology on the issue of origins of life.

Even though you do not agree with the Christian worldview, (due to your rebellion and hostility to God Timmy) it does answer where man came from. He was created by God. That is consistent with what we observe when we observe man and seek God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.

A Personal God created "person" or the personal comes from a Person.
A Mind has consciousness, intelligence, information, intent, order and purpose.
Life comes from life.

Answering your questions Timmy,

1. Aids exists because of God's judgment on sin. God has given the standard of good and man chooses to ignore it and do his/her own thing. There are always consequences for wrong actions. If there were not, then there would be no justice.

2. I would say it is a debatable issue, but my own personal view (i.e - subjective) is that it is a consequence of not looking after the earth properly, of greed and exploitation of what God has given us. Some people would debate whether Global Warming is actually taking place but I have not been convinced of that argument.

3. It is a result of the Fall, of man's willful rebellion against God. If you look at the way man has polluted the earth and misused the resources of the earth, man is reaping the consequences of what he has sown.

4. It depends on God's mercy and grace. Repent and believe is what the Bible calls us to do for our sins, whether that sexual sin is adultery, sex before marriage (fornication) or sex with the same sex.

God established marriage between man and woman as the norm and natural way to live for a number of reasons. We can go deeper if you like. I'm just saving time and space for now in my reply.

The question is does a person have an ear to hear what God is saying or will he/she continue to thumb their nose at God?

5. God's judgment on sin.

6. No. Taking an innocent life is not righteous. What gives a person the "right" to choose to end a life or another one the right to play God and take that right?

TIMMY: "That should be good enough for now.
If you guys think that religion is not dangerous and bad for our society, check out Peter's answers."

What is bad for any country is when a person cannot justify what they believe because there is no standard except as seen through their own eyes. Can you imagine a society where everyone did as they saw fit? So these are things you need to determine in your worldview. How does it justify right?

That is my third question Timmy.

Q2. How do you explain right? Please do not answer until we are through with the other two.

Hello again Timmy,

TIMMY: "Still at it huh?
I'm glad you are here. I have been trying to convince people that religion can warp minds into thinking all kinds of dangerous thoughts. But the folks here aren't buying it so far. So you can really help."

Ha, ha! (-8

What really warps minds is believing you have the truth when you are living in a lie and cannot distinguish it as such. It is like building your foundation in mid-air. So we will keep on testing our worldviews.

TIMMY: "So this is Peter Huff everyone, he believes literally in every word in the Bible, interpreted by him of course."

No I don't. That is your assessment of me, which is incorrect. I take God's Word literally but more often plainly where God gives me reason to do so. Anytime you feel I am making a false interpretation, call me on it and we will go to the Text. I usually am able to recognize an historical narrative from a figure of speech, or poetic passage.

Timmy, how do you interpret John 14:6 or Acts 4:12? There are two ways to interpret. You either seek the authors intended meaning or you read your own meaning into the context. When you insert your own meaning and ignore the context you do not correctly interpret what the author has to say. Communication has failed between the author and the reader. Let's see what you do with those verses? Will you actually interpret correctly?

Q2. How do you interpret these two passages?

TIMMY: "I am sure that Peter did not start out as a literalist, but somewhere along the line he became convinced that the Bible was literally true."

I've answered this question above and in my previous post, so let's move on unless you want to go deeper?

TIMMY: "Questions for Peter:
(This will help everyone get to know what you are all about quickly, Peter, so play along, it will be beneficial that people know your opinions quickly so there is no confusion about what you believe)

1. Why does Aids exist?
2. Why is Global Warming happening?
3. Why do Babies get cancer?
4., What fate do Gay people have coming to them?
5. Why do tsunamis happen?
6. Are abortion doctor killings righteous?"

First off you have asked six questions. I don't mind answering them, but let's take the questions one at a time after this, so we can pursue the issues deeper. Six in a row can send us off on a number of different tangents and I just want to focus on one at a time. I take it that these are the areas you want to focus on??? BTW, you own me five question and five answers, plus the follow-ups to date.

Hello peterhuff,

Welcome to this board. I have just come back in to check in and see that you have taken up the good fight against an old combatant, it seems.

I laid it down with timmy. Got nowhere interesting. You jumped right in, as if on cue.
Are there cues?

So that I am clear, (if you have not been attentive in reviewing my posts), I am not a 'believer' if that term means 'christian'. I love Jesus, but I think most of christianity is far lost from what Jesus taught. I am not a practicing christian though I keep Jesus close to my heart. I also keep the Buddha close to my heart, and Krisna and Siva. And Mother Teresa, Benizir Bhutto, Rumi, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Archbishop Tutu, and Lao Tzu. And well more.
I am clear, upon reading your posts to your friend timmy, that we would do better, in debating spiritual assumptions, to stay general. We could find great agreement in generalizations. God Is Love. God Is Great.
Please do not try to convert me to your belief system. Been there. Love Jesus. Love God. Am not "christian". Won't be.
But I would love to dialogue with you if it comes up.
I am happy that you are here, for the time that you are.

Peace.

Peter

YOU: "You BELIEVE that the universe came about by a chance, random, blind process. Is this correct?"

No

YOU "Let me explain more; either this universe was planned and there is intent here (i.e. meaning and purpose) or it originated by the process I previously described you as believing in"

Incorrect. There is a third option. It has always existed.

My answer to these first two questions makes the rest of your questions in this particular post moot.

Peter

"Q1. Where did life originate/start from?"

I don't know.

Hey Timmy,

I have never said I take every word of the Bible as literal. God uses a variety of different language when He communicates to us. All I claim is that unless there is a reason to do otherwise then we take Scripture on its plain meaning.

Good to speak with you again. I will drop in later to answer the other questions and assertions my friend!

Hi Frederic2,

FREFERIC2: “I fully agree. Religions are invented by the limited human mind forced to MINIMIZE the greatness of the universe in order to have at least a tiny proxy understanding they can cope with, for the time being.”

Christianity is a relationship with the one true God. It differs from the world religions in this way and also in the fact that when you examine world religions they are always works oriented – you are required to do something to earn God’s favor. Check it out for yourself when you study them. Christianity is based on the merit of another – Jesus Christ.

FREDERIC: “The universe in its inaccessible greatness (great in every sense of the word!) is so far superior to the small thinking possibilities of the religions.”

Does the universe think? Does it have understanding? No, it displays the greatness of God.

First you have to establish that something such as an idea or for that matter logic which is non-physical, non-corporal can originate from the physical and corporal universe. Logic is not part of the five senses in that you cannot touch, taste, smell, hear or see it and yet without it you could not make sense of anything. Logic only operates in a mind for rocks do not think or have consciousness. Therefore, there must be something other than matter or material existence. If all we are are material bags of matter in which atoms are colliding in random fashion, then there is no logic or truth. It just happens. There is no good or moral right, it just is. You do not live life like this so your worldview is inconsistent.

Only the Christian worldview can make sense of life/existence and morals and truth and knowledge and meaning and purpose and intent. Evolution cannot make sense of any of these issues. If you think it can I challenge you to try? So the atheistic or unbelieving worldview is unreasonable, incomprehensible and inconsistent.

Continuing Daniel,

DANIEL: “Many of these people assume a psychological state of mental conformity to a doctrine, which is unshakealbe and unreasonable....I know "crazy" when I see it."

I find Daniels comments here hilarious. Without God what is his basis for reason and how does he know that his is the reasonable reason? Without God’s revelation of His Word can he point to how he arrives at his conclusions? It’s just one mans opinion against another. So don’t tell me Daniel is right in this case. He can’t establish any consistency in his thinking about right without God.

Consistency has been demonstrated only in the Christian worldview. Subjective opinion is just that. For right to be right it must have as its source an objective standard and reference point. But the one thing you will not be able to demonstrate by Daniels subjective opinion is that any one is right.

Right must be objective and absolute. That is God. Please Daniel, demonstrate "right" if you think otherwise. I’m sure, without first presupposing the Christian God, AS HE HAS REVEALED HIMSELF, your answer will be shown for what it is – folly and foolish.

I offered Notsogreatscot a proposal on another Susan Jacob forum in which we would exchange a series of questions that we would each come up with in order to hopefully establish which of the two worldviews, that of the believer or the unbeliever is the consistent one and in doing so establish which is more reasonable. Notsogreat did not take the bait, because I believe the futility of his thinking will be shown for what it is.

So you Daniel make all these negative claims about the Christian God. If Susan would permit it on her forum, would you be willing to do so? Ten questions apiece (with follow-up) that you must answer or admit that you cannot make sense of them on the topic of metaphysics, epistemology and axiology. If not you are not serious about discussion, just continue blowing in the wind like so many on these threads.

Hi Danielinthelionsden,

DANIEL: “A conservative, fundamentalist, or fantatic Christian is obsessed with the word "Jesus." Everything is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, all of the time. They are obsessed with reading the Bible, and memorizing it, and with praying and talking to God, and attributing every little happenstance and occurance to God and to Jesus.

A Crossanwiched Christian, and I use the term Christian lightly, is one who has no foundation for his belief. He is the judge and jury that stands over God’s Word, making himself the ultimate standard by his own appointment to the position. He questions that God can preserve His Word down through the centuries, but the problem with such a position is as soon as you start to doubt whether this or that verse is actually God's inspired revelation, you make a mockery of the entire Bible, for then every verse and every chapter becomes suspect as to whether in fact God really said so.

The Crossanwiched Christian has a Christ-less Christianity for he fails to recognize who Jesus is and the worth that Jesus deserves. They always compromise God's standard, His Word, by making Jesus less than He actually is and denying things that should not be denied. (John 8:23-24; 8:12)

Hello Peter,

Still at it huh?
I'm glad you are here. I have been trying to convince people that religion can warp minds into thinking all kinds of dangerous thoughts. But the folks here aren't buying it so far. So you can really help.

So this is Peter Huff everyone, he believes literally in every word in the Bible, interpreted by him of course. I am sure that Peter did not start out as a literalist, but somewhere along the line he became convinced that the Bible was literally true. So if you guys think that moderate religion can not turn into dangerous thinking, watch this. Hopefully Peter will oblige here and answer my questions so you all can see what I am talking about.

Questions for Peter:
(This will help everyone get to know what you are all about quickly, Peter , so play along, it will be beneficial that people know your opinions quickly so there is no confusion about what you believe)

1. Why does Aids exist?
2. Why is Global Warming happening?
3. Why do Babies get cancer?
4., What fate do Gay people have coming to them?
5. Why do tsunamis happen?
6. Are abortion doctor killings righteous?

That should be good enough for now.
If you guys think that religion is not dangerous and bad for our society, check out Peter's answers.

Hi Timmy2 - December 4, 2008 5:16 AM

TIMMY: “Who ever said that we are nothing and came from nothing? Not me.
I am not religious and I believe that I am more than nothing and came from more than nothing. I do not need to believe in something supernatural to believe those two things.

I have some questions for you Timmy based on these assertions.

You BELIEVE that the universe came about by a chance, random, blind process. Is this correct? Let me explain more; either this universe was planned and there is intent here (i.e. meaning and purpose) or it originated by the process I previously described you as believing in. So if it did not come from a Mind why would something that came about by possibility and chance organize itself and show intent and purpose? Can you show me where possibility and chance can ever create order and complexity or how possibility and chance can order themselves? How do we get natural laws from them?

In all the atheistic, humanistic ways of man there is no consistency in answering anything. I could ask 10 different people and come up with ten different answers to the same question. So in your worldview everything is based on probability and possibility. Nothing is certain. So why are you right? What makes you the one?

As I have said to you repeatedly before, without God you cannot make sense of this universe. You need an absolute, objective (God is omniscient so He alone is totally objective), ultimate standard and reference point. You have none in human subjectivity.

The only way you can know with certainty is to have it revealed by God or to think His thoughts after Him. Anything else is pure speculation. He has given us ways to do this, first of all by His Word and Spirit and second by His creation. In His Word He tells us how He did it – He spoke the universe (uni – one; verse - spoken) into existence and also the timeframe in which He did this.

TIMMY2 - December 7, 2008 3:09 AM

TIMMY: “How is it purposeless? My life has plenty of purpose, I could go on at length. Do you want me to? I will type endlessly about all of the purpose in my life.”

You give it purpose, you give it meaning, but you have no reason as to why there is purpose and meaning in a universe that originated by random, chance happenstance. Only conscious mind can create meaning and purpose. Other than that it just is. Your worldview is inconsistent (that is my new word to show the folly of unbelief - inconsistent).

TIMMY: “…If life ends at death, believing that it doesn't won't make that come true. Life either continues or it doesn't. No one knows if it does or does not. But you think you can choose one of those options? You think belief can make things come true?”

Ah yes, the big “IF.” What non-sense. You are telling the readers that you don’t know and therefore no one can know. How do you know that no one knows unless you in fact do know? Come on Timmy, you are up to your old games; totally inconsistent.

You already admitted a long time ago that you can only be 99.999% certain. I know it is a lot less than that, just by your inconsistency.

We can only know certainty because there is a consistent, objective, absolute, unchanging standard and reference point. HE is necessary in order to make sense of anything.

TIMMY: “You don't know me pal. You don't know how many times as a child, teenager and young adult, under the guidance of clergy, I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart with all faith and ernest hope. Many many times. When I was young I wanted to believe more than anything. I wanted to feel God and Jesus terribly. I am still waiting. And I am still open, but as you can now imagine, quite a bit more skeptical.”

Timmy, do you have ears to hear? Repent and Believe. Believe on Jesus Christ. Can I make it any simpler? You examine God’s Word as you being the ultimate judge over it, rather than God judging you by His Word. So the stating point is all wrong. You will not believe because it interferes with your autonomy, your self-will to decide all things. You trust yourself over God. You rely on your own muddled understanding above that of God’s. You place yourself as the authority over the only true authority. If you can make sense of this world outside of God, I’m listening.

TIMMY: “I will give you good reason for every belief I have.
You will not do the same.”

Please start. I hold you to that statement. The operative word as I see it is “good.” First of all is your standard for “good” objective, or am I just to take your word as your all-knowing opinion? (-8

TIMMY2 - December 7, 2008 3:07 AM

TIMMY: “1) I don't hate Christians. They are mostly good hearted people. I hate the ideology of religion. I insult Christianity, not Christians. There is a difference. I see Christians as victims of child abuse...”

Actually, when you insult Christianity you mock God because you claim yourself to be a higher authority than God is and make Him out to be a liar because you declare His Word to be untrue. I make these statements in the hope that God will shake you out of your complacency and slumber!

TIMMY: “2) I do not condemn and dismiss those with different beliefs. I speak out against beliefs with no or bad reason that are harmful to our society.”

There again, you make yourself the final judge on what is good and bad and what is harmful. But in effect what you do is fuel the fire of unbelief and in the end hurt rather than help since you do not see the whole picture. God tears down unbelief by exposing its folly and with the best purpose in mind – that we may have a relationship and fellowship with the Almighty. I expect to see your mockery of these statements, but you know in your heart that what is being said is true Timothy.

TIMMY: “What belief do I have? Tell me what my belief is and I will give you my good reasons for holding that belief. You on the other hand can not, or will not, give good reason for your belief in God….”

You have the belief that everything originated by chance if you do not accept the belief in a Creator. What chance is that? Does Chance as your maker have intent? Does It have purpose? Is Chance orderly? Does Chance carry information? Is Chance intelligent? Does Chance possess personality?

TIMMY: “……I've had this debate with many other believers before, and read other debates, and I have never heard one single good reason for believe in God. So yes, I am extremely skeptical that there is one at this point. But still very open to hearing a good one. But you will not oblige.

Words convey the heart Timmy, and you are constantly showing by your words that you are closed, your fingers are in your ears and your tongue is sticking out at God.

OTHER CHRISTIAN: “"Because YOU know what is true"

TIMMY: “No. But I know what is highly improbable to the point of being ipso facto not true.”

There again you operate on the principle of probability, but as you determine it to be. You don’t know what is true, you admit such and then you discount the proofs of God, not only by your lack of knowledge, but also on your limited wisdom. Go figure.

Finally Timmy,

As for God providing judgment in the form of earthquakes and other natural events or even diseases, He is justified in doing so. You have proven that you will not listen to Him. You are openly defiant of Him. He reminds you of who He is, the giver and taker of life (see Acts 17:24 onwards). You still ignore Him and do not give Him the glory He deserves - you the creature.

Only He has the “right” to take human life, as our Creator, for human life is sacred since we are created in His image and likeness – we are conscious of and know He exists.

If you look at the Ten Commandments you will see that these apply to man, not to God for God is already righteous. He is the standard. How can He steal, He already owns and created everything. He does not lie for it is not a part of His holy and pure nature, He cannot murder for all life belongs to Him, He cannot commit idolatry, for there is no one higher or more magnificent that God. He has always existed as a unity, Father, Son and Spirit – the One true God and therefore always existed in a loving relationship for God is love. He did not need to make man to be loved, existing in three Persons. He cannot disobey a mother or father for there is no one before Him (He is without beginning or end). I think you get the message, so who are you oh man to talk back to your Creator all the time denying that He exists as you shaking your fist at Him?

As I said before, unbelievers are inconsistent in knowledge and belief. The challenge is for you as well as all non-believers to make sense of this world. So let’s see how well you can make sense of this world. Let’s examine the foundations (or lack of in your case) of the two beliefs – the one of the believer and the other of the unbeliever and see which is reasonable.

Ten questions apiece. In order to make this work we need to get beneath the surface so prepare for follow-ups on each question. In analyzing any worldview it needs to answer at least three fundamental questions of 1) metaphysics, 2) epistemology and 3) axiology; or to put it another way, what is out there, how do you know and what difference does it make? Are you game?

Q1. Where did life originate/start from?

Start making sense!

To continue Timmy,

But God in His love also provided a way of justifying man so that the relationship and fellowship that was broken could again be established and God’s justice could prevail. We are forgiven because God is just, not because He compromises His justice. This forgiveness is GIVEN (in love) by sending His Son to meet His righteous requirements in fulfilling His law (you know, the ones that you continually break and are guilty of breaking) by God the Son becoming Man, willingly (again in an act of love and caring on Jesus part), and taking upon Himself God’s punishment by the shedding of His blood (i.e. - the giving of His life in our place), thus satisfying God’s justice on our behalf and exchanging His perfectly righteous life for ours and its judgment and wrath. So the Son of Man met both the righteous requirements of the law and took God's wrath in our place in providing the pure sacrifice for our sins that is pleasing to God.

What love can you show me that is greater than this? The Almighty lowered Himself and became Man in order to fully reveal Himself to us (for God is Spirit and yet to see Jesus is to see the Father – John 14) and pay the penalty for our rebellious/sinful nature and provide the power to overcome sin - the new birth in which we receive from the Holy Spirit a new nature, a new spirit. Only in Jesus are we truly free from both the power and penalty of sin. If you don’t think so try living a just life in which you never do wrong.

Hi everyone,

Sorry, I have come in on the middle of the discussion again and have not read all the posts.

Timmy, long time no hear.

TIMMY: “Righteous? says who? This is the kind of talk that starts wars.

God says, all the rest is subjective opinion unless you can give me an objective standard other than God?

TIMMY: “Supremely loving? Is that why he killed all of humanity twice in a fit of rage?”

Justice was served. The whole world was wicked.

TIMMY: “Is that why he created childhood cancer? Is that why he created tsunamis?
Is that why he sends us to hell for simply not believing in him? Supremely loving? Nice way to show it. Can you tell me how God shows us his love?

You’re mistaken of who God is Timmy. How could a “righteous” God be called loving without establishing justice? There would be no righteousness or love with God if He did not punish what was wrong, what was evil.

Man was the one who brought evil into this world by his disobedience to what was good. God deemed it good for man to eat of any tree in the garden except for the one. Man chose for himself what standard (his own) was good (ignoring God’s authority and thus establishing himself to be the authority) in his own eyes and hence the problems of humanity. When that happened, God put a curse on man and upon the world for mans sin or wrongful action as He had warned the first man that He would if the man disobeyed. (Genesis 2:16; 3:14-19)

One question, frederic.

Do you really believe that reason, and logic, are the sole arbiters for defining the breadth of reality?

You have stressed reason in your arguments, and negate to some extent belief as having validity.
A reasoned and logical worldview , without the 'intuitive' or 'creative' aspects, discounts much that gives human life texture, interest and excitement.
The unknown is always a source of edginess. If everything is known and nothing is not understood, then intellectual curiosity declines. Purpose is determined, often, by that which we want to know, control, conquer, grow into...that we do not yet own.

The human brain is polar, as well. Left brain logic works in necessary harmony with right brain intuitive to maintain balance in the body's systems, as well as the human mind.
Reliance on the logical and rational facilities alone goes contrary to the physical and intellectual manifestations of form.

Belief in the unknown or unseen fits easily into right brain matters. Matters that we do not currently understand drive us forward.
The belief in God is one of many intangibles that are functionally essential to humanity. Other intangibles can be used in place of it, or substituted for it. But we cannot discount the essential qualities of that which is not definable.
In my humble opinion.

Peace.

Farnaz - unable to post a response. Looks like WaPo is back to screening and controlling posts again.........

Hello frederic,
I don't lack empathy for you at all, but I heard your story. I am not fighting for belief in God for those who do not want to. Nor am I saying that God absolutely exists. Noone can without claiming "belief". We didcussed semantics. I am dialoguing my belief, and that is that the mainfest universe was created from a conscious source, and that consciousness is inherent in humans, and all life. Christians call it God and have a sort of face for that. Others have different names and specifics...

"Religion, the "belief" in god, substituting "faith" for "evidence", is the attempt to reduce the greatness of the "unfathomable" universe, including my life and yours, to an emotionally and pseudo-rationally manageable, human-generated entity."

Essentially I agree, although I wouldn't use some of those descriptives across the board for all religions. But you are correct. Religion is a form with which the human mind can contain, (and so attempt to comprehend), the presumed causality of the universe. Comes with sets of rules for how to live life. Varying degrees of effectiveness, and that is a matter of huge debate.
Timmy, and perhaps you, insist that the world would be better without religion. Obviously another matter of huge debate.
But it is a mute point, no? Religions have always been a part of human civilizations since we were little chimps, (perhaps, and yes, huge debate! :-) ). You will not see the dissipation or destruction of religion as an essential aspect of humanity. Because it is that essential to people. It will never be non-relevant.
That is in my humble opinion.

"Man-made god is infinitely smaller than reality. "

Of necessity. Now I am one that does not discount the possibility that experiences of God inspired the sacred texts. Noone can negate that as possible. The text were undoubtably written by human hands and minds for human understanding, and in my view are not literal. But "man-made" means to me fashioned so man can comprehend. It does not mean 'false' as in from a lie.
Unless it is. :-)

"Spiritual atheism" sounds fine.

"Thanks, Timmy2. Why are people so often insulted if somebody refers to reason instead of belief?"

I was not insulted by reason, frederic. I was insulted by timmy. I am fine that he does not believe in God. I have similar reaction, over time, with evangelicals as I had with timmy. The content of the message is different, but the arrogant and egotistic self-certainty is similar, and the attempt to discredit my own beliefs as invalid and idiotic were similar, and the attempt to convert me to what he deemed was a far superior belief system than my 'inferior' one was similar.
He thought he was teaching me and guiding me out of my delusional purgatory of religious indoctrination.
I dislike ego driven arrogance that presumes superiority.
I am happy to dialogue with curious minds.

Peace

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for your reply. Can you tell me anything about Eugene Gendlin?

Thanks!
Farnaz

The Void from an astronomy/physics view:

More from Phil Berman and his column about the "emptiness"/"nothingness" of our world and the universe:

"Space is likewise a biologically based ordering, or method of perception. One person might focus on a waterfall's droplets; another might see the cascade as a single entity. Definitions, habits, and perceptions play a greater role than any true cut-off points — in a cosmos where energy fields dominate and objects only appear solid, where even these solids are forms of energy, and where, in any case, things come and go from the fields.

We're back where we started, on a cold December night in a universe that seems almost entirely empty, but whose vacuity seethes with inconceivable power. Did the Big Bang merely manifest as a minor blip from this unseen, all-pervasive field?

Time will tell if "nothing" can indeed explain everything. Even if so, our work will only just begin. There's more to the invisible than meets the eye."

For those that might be interested, here is a link to a rather vast and entertaining website that covers a wide number of topics, ideas, and personal experiences related to Buddhism, Zen and Eastern mysticism. You have to be willing to ramble in order to get anywhere on this site.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/ZenEnlighten01.html

Farnaz - agreed on Jung and Western philosophy in general (William James being the exception). In my view, the West suffers from a complete preoccupation with the seemingly real, although highly refined 'products' of Emptiness (the Void), rather than that which makes all of this emergence possible (transcending dualism in the process).

Much as I admire Jung as an original thinker, he was hung up on his own discoveries and confabulations (e.g. the collective unconscious, et al) and missed the significance of Shunyata, the heart of Buddhism.

The ideas of the Gnostic Pleroma and the Ein Sof of Kaballah recapitulate this concept in my mind.
And again, while Jung was expert in these wisdom traditions, he (and others) miss their essence.

Spinoza had a better sense of it, while the later existentialists fell into pessimism & nihilism and failed to complete the journey (lacking the concept of Emptiness). D.T. Suzuki brought Zen to the West, and referred to Zen as radical empiricism or radical existentialism.

I have to agree with Timmy and his example in the end - unless one somehow sees into the true heart of the moment with full awareness if only for an instant, we continue to believe everything is really real, rather than transitory and only apparently real. We don't see what is actually there, as the Zennists say.

Religious mythology only compounds this problem in the end.

Justilthen

part two

YOU: "If you think that belief in god is only valid if it is "rational" and "logical" then you will never release yourself from this mundane world"

I don't need to release myself from a mundane world. There is nothing mundane about my world. it is full and exciting and passion filled and engaging. If you think this world is mundane, perhaps you should look into atheism. Cause I'm having a blast.

YOU: "It is mundane if, without causality, a meaningless single life, final and done at death, is purposeless"

How is it purposeless? My life has plenty of purpose, I could go on at length. Do you want me to? I will type endlessly about all of the purpose in my life.

YOU: "Have that if you wish. Not for me"

This is truly funny. Like you have a choice. It is what it is. If life ends at death, believing that it doesn't won't make that come true. Life either continues or it doesn't. No one knows if it does or does not. But you think you can choose one of those options? You think belief can make things come true?

YOU: "A shame that you have not been receptive to the experience of Love of an unknown possibly incomprehensible, maybe unknowable, I-am-sure-false creator myth"

You don't know me pal. You don't know how many times as a child, teenager and young adult, under the guidance of clergy, I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart with all faith and ernest hope. Many many times. When I was young I wanted to believe more than anything. I wanted to feel God and Jesus terribly. I am still waiting. And I am still open, but as you can now imagine, quite a bit more skeptical.

You pointed out that I said:

"You don't need proof of God, for your belief in God to be rational."

But you omitted my next line where I said "but you do need good reason"

i will give you good reason for every belief I have.
You will not do the same.

Justilthen

YOU: "It took awhile. But you are insulting"

I insult bad ideas not people.

YOU: "you, like the christians that you hate, judge and condemn and dismiss those with different beliefs"

1) I don't hate Christians. They are mostly good hearted people. I hate the ideology of religion. I insult Christianity, not Christians. There is a difference. I see Christians as victims of child abuse. They were all told as impressionable toddlers, children and teenagers, that they will go to hell if they do not believe that Jesus is the trinity. When I insult slavery, I am not insulting slaves.

2) I do not condemn and dismiss those with different beliefs. I speak out against beliefs with no or bad reason that are harmful to our society.

YOU: "You are a hypocrite. You say you do not have a belief and all is unknown, and yet you do, and you know"

What belief do I have? Tell me what my belief is and I will give you my good reasons for holding that belief. You on the other hand can not, or will not, give good reason for your belief in God. I can give good reason for every belief I have so you can scrutinize and decide if my belief is valid. So tell me one of my beliefs, and I will give you my reason for that belief. Something you are unwilling to do yourself

YOU: "You have already negated my beliefs before hearing how I feel that they are valid, for me"

I don't know your belief. You haven't described it. I have not negated it. I will not negate your personal belief until I know what it is exactly and why you believe it. But you must understand that I've had this debate with many other believers before, and read other debates, and I have never heard one single good reason for believe in God. So yes, I am extremely skeptical that there is one at this point. But still very open to hearing a good one. But you will not oblige.

"Because YOU know what is true"

No. But I know what is highly improbable to the point of being ipso facto not true.

"Suck it, timmy. It is you that is insulting"

This is pretty funny. Have you ever seen me use that kind of language towards you? Never. That sentence above is irony at it's very best

Justilthen,

I think I can empathize with you much better than vice versa: I know exactly how it feels to believe in god, the solace it purveys and the deeply felt ("experienced"!) superiority it gives you above those poor heathens, because I did "believe" just that for many years in childhood and the beginning of adolescence. A wonderful feeling!

Thus, Astoria, I have experienced god just like you have.

Religion, the "belief" in god, substituting "faith" for "evidence", is the attempt to reduce the greatness of the "unfathomable" universe, including my life and yours, to an emotionally and pseudo-rationally manageable, human-generated entity. God is a proxy, created by the frustration to understand reality. You can "understand" god (easy, since you created him as a proxy), but you (we) don't understand reality, the universe. Man-made god is infinitely smaller than reality.

You might call this attitude "spiritual atheism", if you want. It is not lacking anything. It frees me of the unbearable double-think between forced "belief" in something, and evidence, ever expanding through human curiosity (some call it science). Of course, curiosity was punished by the expulsion from paradise, lol!

Thanks, Timmy2. Why are people so often insulted if somebody refers to reason instead of belief? Strange. Further research for this phenomenon...

To all

Saying "I believe in love" is like saying "I believe in water".

Love is obvious. There is endless evidence for the existence of love.

Define love?
Check the dictionary. That is where we define our words. It has many definitions and we all know what each of them means.

The existence of love is not a question mark. Find me one person who does not believe that love exists. And who does not know what love is.

Believing in love is rational because we can all rattle off endless evidence for love.

There is no evidence for God however. None at all. it is nothing at all like love. Love has plenty of evidence. God has none.

We all have good reason to believe in Love.

We do not however, have good reason to believe in God.
That is why it is called faith. Because there is no reason to believe it. If there was a reason, faith would not be required.

Having faith, is voluntary irrationality.

timmy2:

I prefer to stay clear.

"I do believe in God and I can answer it. I know exactly why I do and what gave me this certainty.
I will not share it with an unreceptive individual that has no care or interest but for conflict and negation"

Your answer:

"lol

You got nothin."

I do not get easily offended. It took awhile. But you are insulting, not solely because you, like the christians that you hate, judge and condemn and dismiss those with different beliefs.
You are a hypocrite. You say you do not have a belief and all is unknown, and yet you do, and you know.

You laugh that I do not share with you how it is that I believe there is a creator power that is bigger than my one life? Why would I share this with you? You have already negated my beliefs before hearing how I feel that they are valid, for me.
Because YOU know what is true.
Suck it, timmy. It is you that is insulting.

If you think that belief in god is only valid if it is "rational" and "logical" then you will never release yourself from this mundane world.

It is mundane if, without causality, a meaningless single life, final and done at death, is purposeless. Have that if you wish. Not for me.
Do not insult those that find it a barren and futile dream.
"So even without proof, I believe that she loves me. Because I have good reason to believe this."

You should read the posts that I sent to frederic.
Without proof, you believe she loves you...
Cool. You have had the experience of her love.

A shame that you have not been receptive to the experience of Love of an unknown possibly incomprehensible, maybe unknowable, I-am-sure-false creator myth.

You said this?:
"You don't need proof of God, for your belief in God to be rational."

Farnazz & Persiflage

Thanks for your posts.

With regards to emptiness and awareness from scientific perspective, you must check out this video from the TED ideas conference. A woman who is a brain scientist tells of her stroke which caused a temporary state of awareness on a molecular level. You will get shivers watching her tell her story about how, at one point, she was looking at her arm, and could not differentiate from the molecules in her arm, and the molecules in the wall behind her arm. It all seemed like one to her.

As a brain scientist, she was able to have great insight into what was going on while it was happening to her. This is one of the most fascinating talks I've ever seen and it affected me greatly and spiritually. It more or less expresses my scientific spirituality.

Have a watch. You'll love it.

Her name is Jill Bolte Taylor and it's on ted.com if the link doesn't work.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

CCNL,

Fascinating little bit.

I usually roll right over your posts because it is usually repetition of the same crap.

But this bit I liked. Thanks.

Hello again frederic2:

Thank you for your post. I was not insulted, by the way. I did not think that I was playing word games and considered what I wrote direct. I was fine with what you wrote, but responded with my take on it.
I have looked up "believe" on dictionary.com and encourage you to as well, if you would like.
Essentially believe is to hold as true what does not have evidence or proofs to validate and substantiate it. Let us say the first of your two meanings. They both amount to essentially the same. It is to have confidence in something, or the conviction that this something is true, lacking proof, or to suppose or assume it is true.

That said, I am fine that you do not believe in God, as I have said. But I also said that belief is subject to receptivity to what is believed in, (the ability to 'experience' it).

You do not believe in God. You have had no meaningful 'experience' of it, and perhaps distasteful ones, and so reject it. It lacks empirical data to support it, God, and so is easy to negate for it has not yet practically existed, as far as you can see.
God therefore does not exist...

I do not know if this is true for you, but I do believe, (there again is that horrible word!), that a requirement for belief is the open receptivity to the possibility that it is true.
Not receptivity theoretically or cerebrally.
Emotionally.

Thank you for your post.

Peace.

Putting our little world into perspective as per Phil Berman in his column in this month's Astronomy Magazine:

"Bob Berman's strange universe: Plenty of nothing"

Your bedroom is not an ideal place to contemplate vacuums. We live in an unusually dense environment; human fingertips alone tingle with a trillion quintillion atoms, and forget all the unloved fat diligently added at fast-food emporiums.

Over 99.9 percent of our body mass consists solely of protons and neutrons, each exactly as dense as a neutron star. But these hyper-compact particles are each a gnat in an empty stadium. If we could suck out all the wasteful space within and between our body atoms and pack the entire human race down to its actual solids, it could all be presented with trumpets and fanfare as a single sugar cube weighing 500 million tons. Remove all our hot air and Homo sapiens is 1 cc, ready to party."

Persiflage,

On Mu, or emptiness:

Yes, it's interesting that that which almost all schools of Western psychology feared finds strong support in James, isn't it? Timmy might like James, if he hasn't already read him.

It's also interesting that in several ways, none of them surprising, Jung couldn't get Buddhism.

Thank you Frederick

Hope you have better luck than me. I think it's going to be up to you now because Justithen has had just about enough of me and my logic.

Be gentle. He is easily offended.

The funny thing is, I though I was being gentle.

Oh well.

Justilthen,

YOU: "I do believe in God and I can answer it. I know exactly why I do and what gave me this certainty.
I will not share it with an unreceptive individual that has no care or interest but for conflict and negation"

lol

You got nothin.
You will not tell me the reason you have for your belief in God or what gave you this "certainty" because you know in your own head right now that it is not rational. It is not logical. If it is, let's hear it.

I believe that my wife loves me.
Can I prove it?
No
Is there any scientific experiment that could prove it?
No

But it is not just faith. I have evidence. She tells me she love me. But she could be lying so I look for more. She kisses and hugs me, she does deeds that show her love for me, she does things that show a selflessness and a great caring when it comes to me. So even without proof, I believe that she loves me. Because I have good reason to believe this.

You don't need proof of God, for your belief in God to be rational.
But you do need a good REASON to hold that belief. Otherwise, it is irrational.
What is your good reason?

You won't answer because you can't without sounding irrational.

Semantics:

The word "believe" has (at least) two different meanings:
1. Thinking that something is true or false, evidence lacking.
2. Asserting something you can see, feel, experience as reality and hold dear. Agreed so far?

In the first mentioned sense, I do not believe in god, because nobody so far could convince me that his existence is true (somebody may freely add "or false").

In the second sense of the word, I believe in love: I experience it, I love and I am loved by quite a few wonderful people. Nobody has to describe or define it for me, because it is an
a priori part of my own reality (the ability to say "I"). Thus, in this semantic sense only, I "believe" in love. (Btw., I also "believe" in good music in this asserting sense).

That is what I meant by "semantic games". Didn't want to insult anybody.

After reading all this back and forth I still like Timmy's idea of all things being either matter or energy - well I suppose it was sort of Einstein's idea first. But it does have merit, and as the foundation of our essential Reality, no gods or first causes are necessary.

It is indeed possible that everything always was and always will be - who can say? My own take on this possibility is represented in the link below - which briefly discusses the concept of Mu, or Emptiness.....said by Buddhists to be the essential nature of everything that ever was or ever will be. This is not incompatible with our current scientific views on 'material' reality - well, all depending on which physicist one asks, of course.

It is possible that as Zen is fond of saying, all religions are simply a vehicle to the essential Truth, and can be readily discarded when the 'other shore' of realization is reached.

Not that there really is another shore - much less a real traveler on an actual journey.

http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/The_Zen_Concept_of_Emptiness,_or_Mu

I've experienced God. In a powerfully direct and personal way.

"The meaning of "believe" in the context of love (or "I believe in good music"), is completely different from...)

This is a false comparison-
Believing in love is not the same as a belief in good music- it may be favoring good music over bad- but it doesn't question or negate it's existence by your belief.
One can certainly negate the experience of love from their life- and for them it truly does not exist, and may seem 'unbelievable'.
Visit a prison and you will see this is true.

It seems "disingeuous" to cajole Justtilthen for using semantics, and then...use semantics.

frederic2:

I am happy for your happiness in life for having abandoned religion. If it works for you and further fulfills you, it is good.

But I am not playing semantic games. I am serious.

You stated:
"... it is simply impossible to say "I believe in god", because you are unable to define god"

"It amounts to "I believe in everything I am unable to define"."

Define love. Seriously.
Do you not need to define it because you somehow "experience" it? Define it.

"The meaning of "believe" in the context of love (or "I believe in good music"), is completely different from the meaning of the same word in the context of "god" or "religion"."

Why? If you "experience" something you do not need to define it, as you said, because it IS?
Only you are making it different. God is something that is a concept, as we have yet to prove its existence. But then, what is love? A feeling, you may say? Really?
Because the concept of God is theoretical, AND WE BELIEVE IN THE EMOTION OF LOVE, we can negate the belief in god while supporting the belief in love?
You then only believe in what you can "experience"?
How can you then negate those that say they "experience" God?

Because YOU do not BELIEVE in God.

Define Love.

""I EXPERIENCE love, I don't have to "believe" in it. It is a part of my ability to say "I"."

"By contrast, I don't experience god; god is a mental construct you either think is true or not (for me the latter)."

There are those that do not believe, as you do, that God is a "mental construct", but experience it as a divine conciousness that affects them if they are receptive to it.

Love will not affect us unless we are open and receptive to experiencing it. When we close the door, love does not enter our worlds...
No?

You have tossed out god as something that you could believe in. That is fine with me. But it is less okay to negate it as possible altogether and for all, just because YOU do not "experience" It.

If religion is mutable and adaptable to any given circumstances, it has lost its meaning, since every religion claims to be immutable truth. (I agree with you there completely!). Nobody prays to a god he thinks "maybe" exists, depending on circumstances.

Justilthen,

you are now playing little semantic games. The meaning of "believe" in the context of love (or "I believe in good music"), is completely different from the meaning of the same word in the context of "god" or "religion". I EXPERIENCE love, I don't have to "believe" in it. It is a part of my ability to say "I". By contrast, I don't experience god; god is a mental construct you either think is true or not (for me the latter).

So this was a bit disingenuous, and certainly not very convincing: If you "BELIEVE in anything which is possible" you might as well, as I think is convincingly logical, discard the whole concept of religion - which I have done long ago, to great advantage and happiness in my life.

frederic2:

"on a higher level of reflection it is simply impossible to say "I believe in god", because you are unable to define god"
"It amounts to "I believe in everything I am unable to define"."

OK. So, do you believe in love? If so, (or even no!) can you explain it? Or define it?

Perhaps religion is the attempt to explain or grasp what is clear we experience but cannot define or answer. In this case religion may make "do you believe in love" be "do you believe in Love"?

Hello again frederic2:

"There is no reason to make a difference between the "discussion" between Abraham and god and the "discussion" between god (who is this, btw?) and Bush or anybody else today: The persuasion that someone speaks to you. Persuasion growing into self-delusion."

I do not know what you are saying here. Are you saying that the "discussion" is the same, regardless of the human receiving it, because it comes from ETE? I'd question that, but hey, whadda I know? But I hold the concept that one may "hear voices" and not be delusional.
We dream nightly, but most of us are not delusional. Some of our dreams may be prophetic for our lives, or precognitive, living in the dream what has not yet come into the physical world, but does so exactly as it was dreamed.
I like a world where "reality" is not limited to what is rational alone. How do we know?

"If the human mind changes everything, which, of course, I agree on, there is no such thing as an eternal truth... - q.e.d. Your reasonable statement amounts to nothing less than to abandon the concept of religion altogether."

I do not go there, and I think you make far too many 'leaps of faith', (pardon the pun), to get to your answer. Eternal truth can exist even if the human mind is in a constant state of change. It also does not require abandonment of religion. But I think we could say that as well as everything else on this level, religion is also changeable and mutable. It is not, of itself, Eternal Truth. (Adherents disagree, but I find no support for it.) Therefore religion should be related to as mutable and take what helps and apply it to our lives.
Or not...

Justilthen,

on a higher level of reflection it is simply impossible to say "I believe in god", because you are unable to define god - unless you slide into the negligible primitive literalism, which obviously you don't tout.

It amounts to "I believe in everything I am unable to define". Maybe that would finally morph into an honest "scientific" thinking, which can also claim "I believe in everything which I am YET unable to define".

Timmy2,

Just to leave it on a clear note, the previous posts were in three parts, viewed below, in succession, starting with:

"Hello again Timmy2,

I will try to be short. Less painful."

One further point. Your "problem of infinite regression". You make an assumption that the "creator source" is limited, (contrary to a presumed definition of it as unlimited), to the manifest worlds postulated Law of Cause and Effect. We do not know what governs a postulated Causal Universe, if anything does, but one assumption floated is that it is not binary, or dualistic, by a unified wholeness. Singular. One.
It is very conscievable that there would not be beginning and ending, but isness.

I am leading you through these contemplations to get you to consider how your whole belief system is flawed and full of double standards.... :-)
Seems that I am the one that has to keep coming up with the fact that "we do not know".

I thought that was supposed to be your job, timmy.

I do believe in God and I can answer it. I know exactly why I do and what gave me this certainty.
I will not share it with an unreceptive individual that has no care or interest but for conflict and negation.

Cheerio!

Timmy,

"My guess is that you haven't really thought to deeply about why you believe what you believe. And when I make you think about it by asking you those questions, you discover that you really don't have a good reason to believe it."

"I take you through this reasoning and logic exercise the get you to think deeply about what you believe and why you believe it,..."

You are clearly arrogant, and beyond your wading depth. Please go back to the shallow end before you sink. I have a distaste for you insults and inference that I am shallow and do not contemplate my beliefs. Stuff it back up your arrogant self-righteousness, timmy.

Your religion, when you start it, would have you as the grand pooh-bah guru, oh deep one?

"...and your response to this exercise of logic and reasoning is to accuse me of trying to start my own religion? Unbelievable. seriously unbelievable."

You are delusional. I did not accuse you of trying to start your own religion, (though perhaps you already have!). I suggested that you could. Suggested that you could write a screenplay on your belief system, and then start a religion.

Go for it. Don't email me an invitation for the grand opening.

Peace, timmy.
Ciao.

Timmy2,

I did not say that you were a "religionist". I said that you could start a religion based on your belief system. Reread it, they were interesting philisophical questions that you put out.

"And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on and so on. In what universe does our creative source live in? And what created his universe. Or has his universe always been. Couldn't our universe be the one that has always been?"

Tell me the religious idea I am pushing here?"

You are discussing possible source of the Creator and theological cosmology, timmy.

"Not true. I have no beliefs on the unknown questions other than the belief that they are unknown"

"Do you get it?
If you think "I don't know" is a belief, you need therapy."

You do not say "I don't know". You say "I know it is not that" and while negating that any people get benefit from religious convictions or spiritual belief systems.
You are a negater.
Like it is your religion. :-)

Hello again Timmy2,

I will try to be short. Less painful.

We are not communicating and I don't want much more of it. You refuse to consider comments, prejudge them based on your own belief system while saying that you have no belief system, and then go about looking for conflict. Conflict that results from constructive debate is great, but a prerequisite for it is honesty in communication and an open mind.

Look up the definition of Belief.
Likewise the definition of religion.

I have not espoused any religion, even as I have commented on the Bible and it's stories as having possible validity. This is because you negated everything biblical flat out and absolutely. Why, timmy, if as you say your answer to the unknown questions is "I do not know"?
Later you went to your '0.0000001% jibberish.
YOU have very strong beliefs re religion, mostly that they are all bad and evil and wrong and illogical and.... On and on. Your beliefs are generally connected to the negation of any religious belief system that says it has some understanding.

You say that it is a mystery and unknown, and so you have no belief about it. Then you question how someone says it is undefinable and unknowable.

Justilthen:

Obviously, when we refer TODAY to the "eternal truth" of the past (as religionists are required to do as a core definition of their religion), we refer to what THEN was the future. This future is today. There is no reason to make a difference between the "discussion" between Abraham and god and the "discussion" between god (who is this, btw?) and Bush or anybody else today: The persuasion that someone speaks to you. Persuasion growing into self-delusion.

I remember, as a religiously educated child, I tried to "persuade" myself that black is white ("Credo quia absurdum"). And I tell you what: I DID believe it in my infantile illusionary religious idealism. The accent is on "infantile".

It is the difference between infantile illusionary wishful thinking (for whatever, even tribal reasons) and mature perception of reality at a given moment in time.

Thanks for your second post: If the human mind changes everything, which, of course, I agree on, there is no such thing as an eternal truth... - q.e.d. Your reasonable statement amounts to nothing less than to abandon the concept of religion altogether.

Hello again frederic2:

One other part of the assumption on our Eternal Truth Entity. Even if the assumption is then made that the ETE CAN ONLY SPEAK eternal truth, the real variable is humans. Their way of perception and translation is anything but eternal. Ever changing, if anything. Human consciousness would alter the message based on it's own biases and judgements.

Hello frederic2:

"If this sort of communication refers to an entity representing ETERNAL truth, they should be applicable eternally, which means, also today."

That is an assumption that cannot be easily defended, even if we make it a given that an Eternal Truth Entity existed. We have no way to qualify what the intention of the ETE is, if it wants to be known into the future, have that message handed down for thousands of years, have the message applied to changed cultures,events and environments in a future time, etc.
I do not even think that a human consciousness, focused on time and it's life and events and families and needs, could comprehend Eternal Truth. In the Bible God speaks to men. Perhaps pious men, perhaps receptive men. But humans.
If a further assumption is made that the ETE KNOWS what will happen and so gives this message TO AFFECT the future, (as literalists believe). then you need not worry about anything. Sit back and relax, or act as you are driven to act. Hey, terrorists are being proactive now, seeking to bring about the fulfillment of their idea of ETE's Plan.

"The discussions between "god" and Abraham, therefore, are closely comparable to the discussions between "god" and Bush, with similarly disastrous consequences, gleaning grave decisions for the tribe or (worse) world based on mere self-delusion. If you deny this sort of "discussion" to Bush, you are logically forced to deny it to Abraham."

Again this is hypothetical. We have no reference to God speaking directly with Bush, outside of his belief in his personal relationship with God. Nothing that is comparable to the story of God speaking with Abraham.
Though if he did talk to Bush I HAVE to believe that there were some serious screw ups in the communications... :-)

Farnaz2, you wrote:

“JAC, what happened? You seem, dare I say it, almost rational”

Just tell me what I have said in previous posts that do not sound rational to you.

Peace to all,

JUSTACOMMENT or JAC

JAC,

What happened? You seem, dare I say it, almost rational.

I watched the movie that Timmy2 recommended (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ ). The content of the first part -about 40 minutes- is a good example of what should be taught in the schools in all countries in the world: a historical review of the common myths that are the origin of the main religions. By teaching this to young people the percentage of extremists in the next generation of religious people could go down.

If the schools complement this teaching critical thinking and concepts of human rights, in few decades will be possible to live in a more peaceful world. Why? Simply because citizens in each country will not blindly follow crazy government leaders nor fanatic head of churches.

Well, this is just a comment or merely a good dream…

Peace

Counterww

You'll have to show me where I indicated that my reason for not believing in God is the Zeitgeist movie.

I have millions of reasons and they are all so obvious and out there in the open that it is truly an embarrassing position and a display of willful ignorance that anyone would believe in Bible God.

Why do I refer to the Zeitgeist movie?
I sure don't believe in any conspiracy theories, but the fact is that the movie I'm referring to gives a brilliant account of information that is available and verifiable through independent sources showing how the myth of Jesus was lifted from ancient myths of other cultures which are all based on worship of the sun or (son)

So get this smart guy. If you can find one fact provided in that movie with regards to the Jesus myth and it's pagurism from the religion of the Egyptians and the pagans, I'll stand on the highest podium around and shout at the top of my lungs "I believe in God!"

Yes sir. You can make me embarrass myself that much. Just show me the lies in the religion section of that movie.

The rest of it is conspiracy theory I admit. Unfortunately for you and your smarminess, it doesn't change a thing about the factual based account of how the Christian faith was invented.

Do you believe in god?

Justilthen: You write (about the discussion between god and Abraham):
...historical spiritual texts should be seen only in the light of the possibility that they had direct revelence only in the time that they were written..." (your reference to "historical" would indeed merit another discussion!)

If this sort of communication refers to an entity representing ETERNAL truth, they should be applicable eternally, which means, also today.

The discussions between "god" and Abraham, therefore, are closely comparable to the discussions between "god" and Bush, with similarly disastrous consequences, gleaning grave decisions for the tribe or (worse) world based on mere self-delusion. If you deny this sort of "discussion" to Bush, you are logically forced to deny it to Abraham.

Jeez Timmy, even though I do disagree with you, once you bring the kooky movie into the picture, you just come across as an uneducated fool. The US went into WW 1 and 2 so the Fed could get us into debt? Conspiracy theorists abound in this cultish movie. 9-11 a conspiracy? Jeez, you are WAY out there.

And you use this as a example of why you don't believe in God?

Get a grip on reality....

Sorry one of my posts to Justilthen got duplicated

Justilthen

Part two

In the quote where you accuse me (we still don't know the reason) of being a religionist, I was calling your attention to one of the main logical fallacies to the God proposition. It's called "the problem of infinite regression". And what it means is, when pondering the origin of the universe, if you imagine that it has a "creative source", that only explains the origin of this universe. What about the creative source? Where did it come from? Well using the same logic that made you decide that the universe must have a creative source, by the same logic, the creative source must also have a creative source, which in turn must have a creative source and on to infinity. So you haven't really solved the problem of "what is the source of it all" by assigning a creative source to the universe. Because it only raises the question of what is the source of the source then. Even if our universe does have a creative source, somewhere along the line, something had to just "always have been".

Religionists solve the problem of infinite regression by giving their God the attribute of being that thing that has "always been". Convenient. But this of course takes away their biggest argument for God, which is that "the universe could not have created itself". Not realizing that the same logic goes for God.

I take you through this reasoning and logic exercise the get you to think deeply about what you believe and why you believe it, and your response to this exercise of logic and reasoning is to accuse me of trying to start my own religion? Unbelievable. seriously unbelievable.

Why do you believe that God exists?

It's a simple question.
Can you answer it?

justilthen

What I said was, as well as quoting, you need to EXPLAIN how this quote is some how religious in nature. because it clearly is not.

"And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on..."

Tell me the religious idea I am pushing here?

YOU: "But you have some very strong beliefs on the "unknown questions". You are stating them all over these boards.
While being combative with everyone that holds views alternative to yours"

Not true. I have no beliefs on the unknown questions other than the belief that they are unknown which kind of goes without saying. . I am the only one here saying it is all a mystery. Pay attention. This is very simple. Here are the unknown questions with my answer vs your answer.

How did the universe come to be?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: God created it (belief)

Does the universe have a creative source?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: Yes. God. (belief)

Is there and afterlife?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: Yes. (belief)

Do you get it?
If you think "I don't know" is a belief, you need therapy.

You are the one with the belief and I am simply trying to discover the reason for your belief by asking you questions about what you believe and why you believe it. I can understand why you don't really want to answer those questions. My guess is that you haven't really thought to deeply about why you believe what you believe. And when I make you think about it by asking you those questions, you discover that you really don't have a good reason to believe it. You just do. But you don't want to just say that, because you know it sounds irrational. That's because it is.

justilthen

What I said was, as well as quoting, you need to EXPLAIN how this quote is some how religious in nature. because it clearly is not.

"And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on..."

Tell me the religious idea I am pushing here?

YOU: "But you have some very strong beliefs on the "unknown questions". You are stating them all over these boards.
While being combative with everyone that holds views alternative to yours"

Not true. I have no beliefs on the unknown questions other than the belief that they are unknown which kind of goes without saying. . I am the only one here saying it is all a mystery. Pay attention. This is very simple. Here are the unknown questions with my answer vs your answer.

How did the universe come to be?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: God created it (belief)

Does the universe have a creative source?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: Yes. God. (belief)

Is there and afterlife?

Timmy's answer: We don't know (no belief)
Justill's answer: Yes. (belief)

Do you get it?
If you think "I don't know" is a belief, you need therapy.

Science is all about rational methods, the content is dynamically progressive.
Organized religion is all about fixed content, rational method is not relevant for religion and in many cases rational methods are the enemy of the fixed content.

**************************

There is an immense difference between an individual with faith and the organized religion. You can respect the individual and the way he/she behaves in the community without agreeing with his/her beliefs. On the other hand is very difficult to respect the way how most of organized religions have behaved throughout centuries.

***************************

Individuals that belong to organized religions contribute to support the good behavior of the organized religion, but at the same time also support the not so good behavior, most of the time without even been aware.

***************************

Peace to all,

JUSTACOMMENT

Timmy,
This is getting a bit annoying. Either I am not being as clear as I think I am or you are not hearing. Reading some other posters responses to you, and my experiences, I believe that the latter is true.
You have not read what I wrote and contemplated it as a perception to consider. You have misunderstood what was obvious, because you have already determined what you believe. You are simply being combative and contentious, and I am not much interested.
I will not respond to much of your points of contention that you versed out in the past two posts. Perhaps later if it gets more interesting for me after I return.
The last bit I will respond to. And the first.

"If it is unfathomable, how could God have talked to Abraham? You say that it is unfathomable as though you know it for a fact, but you have also said that you believe it is possible that God talked to Abraham. These things can't both be true."
Why do you limit "the Unfathomable"? Assuming such exists, if it is beyond understanding how could you say that what is possible and not possible for it to do? Talk to Abraham, Jesus, the Pleides constellation in aramaic... By definition it is beyond comprehending.
Currently life is beyond comprehending. Science is slowly growing further understanding.

As for the last bit, I did explain it and used a quote. Please read again.

"And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on..."

"I say "I believe that could be true", and you say "I believe that it is true". That makes you the religionist, and me not the religionist. I propose no belief on the unknown questions.

But you have some very strong beliefs on the "unknown questions". You are stating them all over these boards.
While being combative with everyone that holds views alternative to yours.

Justilthen,

Part two

YOU: "I know that you would prefer that "religion" did not exist, or was at least 'de-stressed' in the world. But it has been essential for people to identify, and identify with, God in their lives.

How can it be essential for people to identify with something they no nothing about, or even if it exists at all? It can not be essential to identify with something that is impossible to identify with because, as you say, it is "unidentifiable by nature". What about me and the millions and millions of other atheists and agnostics who don't believe in God at all. Our lives are fully functional, aand fully enriched, without God. So when you say it is essential for people to identify with God, what people are you talking about? It's not essential for me. What is different about the people who you are saying it is essential for?

YOU: "Life, without the concept of it being ongoing, and Me somehow being ongoing, is not much worth living"

This is the scariest statement made by the religionist. One of the major blockades to us improving this world is that more than half of the world's population thinks that this life is just a waiting room for the real party. This is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. If science were to discover tomorrow definitively that this is the only life we have, it would make this life MORE worth living not less. Did you actually just say that if you found out tomorrow that this was definitely the only life you have, that you would immediately end it? This makes no sense at all.

YOU: Careful now timmy2, you are getting dangerously close to sounding religious! Hey, you could start your own religion and write a Book"

Okay we're going to have to deal with this now because it's getting annoying. Here is the difference between you and me. When we don't know something to be true, but you believe that it is possible, I say "I believe that could be true", and you say "I believe that it is true". That makes you the religionist, and me not the religionist. I propose no belief on the unknown questions. It is a mystery. All options are on the table. And they all have their own varying degrees of probability. I have no belief with regards to the unanswered questions. It is a mystery. religionists push their belief. I don't have one. I am questioning your belief because you believe you know the answer to the question "is there a God?" You have a belief about that. And I am asking you questions about your belief, to show you how absurd a belief it is to have.

The next time you want to throw this baseless accusation at me, please use quotes and be specific about why anything that I said are the words of a religionist. That way I can defend the accusation because I will know what the hell you are referring to. In this case, I certainly do not.

Justilthen

You refer to the Biblical texts as "Windows into attempting to comprehend what is literally Unfathomable"

If it is unfathomable, how could God have talked to Abraham? You say that it is unfathomable as though you know it for a fact, but you have also said that you believe it is possible that God talked to Abraham. These things can't both be true. How do you know that God is unfathomable? How do you know that he exists at all? Where did you get this information from?

YOU: "But I still say that I see no basic distinction between these perceptions"

What two perceptions? I know the Biblical one, intimately. But I know nothing of yours. Neither do you it seems. All you have said is that you believe that God exists, and the only other description that you have is that it is the creative source of the universe. How is this the same as the very specific character from the Bible with thousands of very specific attributes, characteristics and motives. One of these things is an abstract thought, and one is a specific, well defined character.

YOU: "Hey, if communication or perception of the Creator Source existed that was impure or corrupted, (meaning made less than It Was), but it was universally accepted as valid, we would have far fewer problems here"

Hey if everyone stopped pretending that they know more than science knows about the origin of the universe, how it got here, if it did at all, if there is a creative source or not, and just accept that no one knows, that it is a complete mystery, we would have far fewer problems around here"

YOU: "I believe that God exists as Itself,

Why do you believe this? What reason do you have to hold this belief?

YOU: "Allah is an islamic name for God, and is given specifics of form and word and attitude and voece... But it is a human representation of what is undefinable by nature"

How do you know that God is unidentifiable by nature? You say this as though you know it for a fact. Where did you get this information. From your head?

YOU: "God, Yahweh, Jehovah, G-d, Ishtar, Allah are names and Identities that humans have given to a Divine Creative Source so that man can define and identify with It"

How does giving something a name help man identify with something that is "unidentifiable by nature" "unfathomable". You know nothing about God or even if it exists at all, and naming this thing that might not even exist, that you know nothing about, will help you identify with it? can you explain?

YOU: "It is humans, believing that their version is actually Pure and Absolute, that have the problem.

No actually. They do not have the problem We have the problem. They are it.

YOU: But there are many people that believe in the God of the bible as the truest representation of God that exists on the planet, and many Christians will swear by Jesus as the only Savior.... So it is.

I am well aware of this problem.

frederic2:

"Hallucination at best, willful self-delusion for political or other personal gain at worst."

"A non-existing entity cannot talk to anybody."

Perhaps at best it was true, and so divine guidance. Noone can say definitively.

For your second example of the Burning Bushie, I would bet on the willful self-delusion bit. And/or another example of the reason that historical spiritual texts should be seen only in the light of the possibility that they had direct revelence only in the time that they were written, and should not be followed as a map to apply to todays world.

God talked to Abraham to kill Isaak (assuming, for the sake of the example, the reports are historical).

God talked to Bush to invade Iraq.

Both cases: Hallucination at best, willful self-delusion for political or other personal gain at worst.

A hallucinating person cannot discern reality from his "vision". For him, it is reality, experienced truth, as real as anything can be.

A non-existing entity cannot talk to anybody.

Timmy,

"And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on and so on. In what universe does our creative source live in? And what created his universe. Or has his universe always been. Couldn't our universe be the one that has always been?

Food for thought.
peace"

Careful now timmy2, you are getting dangerously close to sounding religious! Hey, you could start your own religion and write a Book.
Better yet, these questions could fit into Hollywood. You should write a screenplay, and then start the religion...

Seriously, though, these questions are examples of how we do not know what may or may not be causal. Which brings me back to my argument that as we do not know, we can not know that Biblical, or Quranic, or Toric stories are not fact based, or that the God of Abraham or Moses may not have talked to them.
Perhaps I doubt it, certainly literally as it was written, but we are speaking of Something that is Incomprehensible...

Timmy2,

"What you believe, on the other hand, could never cause wars. It is harmless. Your God is an abstract God. Mother nature essentially. A sort of, unknown God"

"This is spirituality, not religion."

I do not think of "my God" as harmless by any stretch, but you are correct that it is less likely to inspire the masses to go out and kill in It's Name. Because there is no war with other Gods or Religious Ways, because it is all the same.
I know that you would prefer that "religion" did not exist, or was at least 'de-stressed' in the world. But it has been essential for people to identify, and identify with, God in their lives. It continues to be. Life, without the concept of it being ongoing, and Me somehow being ongoing, is not much worth living.

Timmy,
Next half to the last post:

Allah is an islamic name for God, and is given specifics of form and word and attitude and voece... But it is a human representation of what is undefinable by nature.
God, Yahweh, Jehovah, G-d, Ishtar, Allah are names and Identities that humans have given to a Divine Creative Source so that man can define and identify with It. God, however, Is what ever It Is.
It is humans, believing that their version is actually Pure and Absolute, that have the problem. Because they do not have allowance for the possibility that they do not have the full version. VersionOriginalGOD.0
This is what I mean that they are the same to me.

I do not believe your numbers regarding American Literalists. Wherever you came up with 80% of americans believe the bible literally is false, I am sure. Evangelicals make up far less than 50% of americas population, and you will not find near 100% of them are literal believers. Literalists are a minority.
My brother is a literalist. I am clear the distinction.
But there are many people that believe in the God of the bible as the truest representation of God that exists on the planet, and many Christians will swear by Jesus as the only Savior....
So it is.

timmy2:

""So there is no difference for me between "God" and "Intellegent Creator Source" and "Allah".

But there should be. If that is how you feel about the Abrahamic texts, you should be very clear about making a distinction between what you believe and the God from that Book. Because there is a fundamental difference. Literal belief in the God from from that book (80% of Americans, all Muslims) is a very dangerous thing. Here's why."

G'day timmy2,

Again I will have a short time. Sorry.

You are continuing on your Crusade against the Bible. I am telling you that will do you no good!
You need not convince me that it is not a literal Word of God. I have already said this, essentially if not directly. I am not a literalist regarding any of the sacred texts. Written by man, handed down by man, for consumption by man. Windows into attempting to comprehend what is literally Unfathomable.
But I still say that I see no basic distinction between these perceptions. In an elemetary way, I suppose. There are innumerable specifics that are different, clearly, in spiritual texts explainations of God and Gods Plan, etc. But all human perceptions of God are flawed, I believe, for there is no direct communication that is pure, much less universally recognized as valid.
Hey, if communication or perception of the Creator Source existed that was impure or corrupted, (meaning made less than It Was), but it was universally accepted as valid, we would have far fewer problems here.
But that is not the state of affairs on this level of existence.
I believe that God exists as Itself, and regardless of the name men have ascribed to It, or the experiences of God that they say they had and have passed down through oral and written word, or the specific representations that have been attributed to God, That Creator is the same. Unchanged, Is , Will Be.
We change.

Susan,
Thanks for your post, as it is and continues to be in opposition of say, the post of John Mark Reynolds who still manages somehow to get his poke at "secularists." Geez you'd think he was the director of some religious-philosophy organization...

I'd encourage anyone to spend some time reading "Against All Enemies" and "Your Government Failed You" by Richard Clarke, the several-decades multi-administration National Security expert, particularly his take on any merits of GBWs decisions to create the Homeland Security department. For those who think this was a good idea or that somehow we're "safer" as a result, this makes for some depressing reading.

And if the recent predictions are valid concerning very possible bio-terrorism in the near future, (Thor forbid) we should expect our current policies to be protective in the future and these predictions to be hearsay. I'd recommend not holding your breath.

Justilthen

Part two (part one below)

Belief in the God from that book however is a very irrational belief for many reasons. You should be adamant about drawing a clear distinction between what you believe, and that. Because supporting that belief is bad for our society.

Lev 20:13
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

How many Americans, who are not psychopaths believe that God Hates F_gs?

Don't you think that people could get all of the comfort they need from your kind of belief, that is harmless, because you don't pretend to know god's wishes? It works for you, why can't it work for everybody? What is different about other people that you think that they need to believe that their preacher knows God personally and knows his wishes and commands and the punishments that he will hand down to those who disobey and even worse, disbelieve?

I contend that no one needs to believe that to be a good person and for comfort. It is never a good thing to believe something that is not true. And the God who supposedly said those words above, is definitely not true. and by that I mean 99.9999999% likely to be not true.

I will touch on all of the reasons why I am sure, as you should be, that Bible God is definitely not true in my next post. I am certain that I can convince you that the likelihood of it being true is around 0.000000001% at best. You just haven't heard all of the most damning evidence against compiled into one brief. While I attempt to do that, it would help if you watched the first third of the film Zeitgeist. It is one of the best layouts for the origin of myths and religion I have seen. I don't think it is possible for any sane person to come away from the first third of that film not 100% convinced that Christianity is entirely myth.

Here is a link.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Watch the first third of the Movie (not the addendum, although that is good as well)

And I'll leave you with some food for thought about the creative source of the universe. Wouldn't that creative source also have to have a creative source? Which in turn must have to have a creative source, and so on and so on. In what universe does our creative source live in? And what created his universe. Or has his universe always been. Couldn't our universe be the one that has always been?

Food for thought.
peace

Part one

Justilthen,

You said:
"I do not believe, literally, any of the sacred texts as Truth. Especially of the Abrahamic religions. So there is no difference for me between "God" and "Intellegent Creator Source" and "Allah".

But there should be. If that is how you feel about the Abrahamic texts, you should be very clear about making a distinction between what you believe and the God from that Book. Because there is a fundamental difference. Literal belief in the God from from that book (80% of Americans, all Muslims) is a very dangerous thing. Here's why.

Deuteronomy 20 - 10 -18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

It does not take a psychopath to conclude that this means that committing unspeakable horrors on the innocents of other tribes in the name of your God is your duty. It only takes someone who has been convinced that this book is literally the word of God. That is most Americans. That is why they will support any war in the middle east. That is why George Bush Got elected twice.

What you believe, on the other hand, could never cause wars. It is harmless. Your God is an abstract God. Mother nature essentially. A sort of, unknown God, that you don't really know anything about but you sense a positive force and a scheme to it all, or a creative source as you call it. This is spirituality, not religion. You could never do anything irrational because of this belief, because it is not an irrational belief. You believe that it is possible and even likely that this creative source exists but you also accept the possibility that it might not. So you could never got to the wall over your belief in this God, because you don't even know what he or it wants really.

Continued in next post above.

Athena, Athena, Athena,

How "unWiccan" of you!!! Must be a "spell" going around in the pagan community.

And we don't see below where Globalone was somehow in disagreement with the update on the USA's War on Terror and Aggression.

Globalone:

Don't try to argue logic with CCNL. He'll just keep repeating the same arguments until you give up. He's a bigot and a troll. Just ignore him.

Hello timmy2,

OK, I will work with this for a little bit, and I unfortunately have to do some other things quite soon. I hope to get back to it.

Your part one:

"You seem to be unaware of the giant gap between "Some Intelligent creator source" and "God of the bible". It is only the latter that I said definitely does not exist."

Two things. First is that there is not for me a giant gap. I am not a literalist, as I have said. I do not believe, literally, any of the sacred texts as Truth. Especially of the Abrahamic religions. So there is no difference for me between "God" and "Intellegent Creator Source" and "Allah". They are all metaphors, to varying degrees, of the creative source of the Universe. What we in the west tend to call God.
The second part is that it does not matter, based on past posts. If all is possible, the God of the Bible is possible. You state unequivocably that the God of the bible "definitely does not exist".
You negate the possibility of validity of the bible on any level. You seem to have a deep aversion to it.
That kind of charge can do ya ugly, timmy. And cloud good reason.

Gotta go, but I hope to address the rest of these two posts.

Thank you for the debate.

Justilthen

Here is part two

You said:
" I believe in more than the physical universe by my experiences even if science cannot validate these possibilities"

Why do you believe in more than the physical universe?
What evidence do you have that there is something more?
What Experiences are you talking about?

You said
"Yet you claim that God definitely does not exist. By your definition you are then theistic.
(I knew that you were a fundamentalist! :-) )"

Here again you are confusing "God" with "Some creator entity".
It is only the former that I said definitely does not exist.

You are correct that "everything is possible". But some things are more probable than others. And some things are so improbable that we simply say "they do not exist" as opposed to "they may or may not exist". I know that you don't believe that dragons exist. You and I both agree that they could possibly exist because nothing is impossible, but you and I would both put the probability that magic dragons exist somewhere around 0.0000001%. The same goes for all myths created by man. Including God.

When something is that improbable, we simply say "Elvis is definitely not still alive and walking around shopping malls in the midwest"

It is not theistic to say this.
It is not theistic to say that magic dragons definitely do not exist.

It is rational probability.

justilthen

You said:
"You limit this 'unknown' by discounting as a POSSIBILITY the existence of some intelligent creator source. That is my point"

No I do not.
You seem to be unaware of the giant gap between "Some Intelligent creator source" and "God of the bible". It is only the latter that I said definitely does not exist.

"You said:
"Religions offer views of the possible cause and meaning of life, in a form that they believe"

There "views" are based not on reason and science, but rather on 4000 year old hearsay from bronze age nomadic goat herders who didn't know what caused disease and floods. It is irrational to believe that these people had any special knowledge as to the origin of the universe, in fact there is every reason to believe that they definitely did not because they thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the sky was solid. And the myth they created is full of contradiction and logical fallacy.

You said:
"As you said, noone knows the origin of life. You do not know that religion is not on to something"

I know that they're beliefs are based on irrational thinking, so the probability of them being on to something is like 0.00000001% and that's probably being generous.

You said:
"Personally I do not believe in the stories forwarded by religions literally, but can find some value in them metaphorically"

Yes, that is how myths are supposed to be taken.
But Religion is not that. Religion is saying that these are not myths, but true representations of the one true creator of the universe. That is why religion is bad, where as open minded spirituality is good.

You said:
"I have said that I believe in God, whatever that may be."

You need to think about that a lot. "Whatever that may be"
If the Bible is myth, what is God? If the very concept of God comes from the bible, and we know that the people who wrote that were making it all up from other ancient myths, should we not decide to not start from that supposition and just observe the world around us, and the evidence that science gives us, and postulate open mindedly about the mystery of life? If you do this, there is no reason to imagine a character anything like God of the Bible.

End of Part one

Ms. Jacoby: "But all religion is based on nonrational faith; the difference between moderate and extremist religion is that moderate religion generally translates into belief in positive, humane ethical principles while extremist religion translates into belief in the right to murder and vengeance in the name of Absolute Truth."

Thank you for saying this. Hopefully, the anti-theists that pervade these boards will take your words to heart.

Timmy,

OK, I can agree with something here.

"No I do not know the limits of the universe nor do I know it's origin if it has one at all. No one does. That is the point."

You limit this 'unknown' by discounting as a POSSIBILITY the existence of some intelligent creator source. That is my point.

"Religion is pretending to know these things definitively. That is why religion is bad."

OK. Religions offer views of the possible cause and meaning of life, in a form that they believe. As you said, noone knows the origin of life. You do not know that religion is not on to something. Personally I do not believe in the stories forwarded by religions literally, but can find some value in them metaphorically. But again, we do not know truth, until it does hit us in the face...

"It is the religionist who think that they KNOW the answers to these questions. You have it backwards."

I never said that religions DO KNOW the truth. I have said that I believe in God, whatever that may be. But I have not said that I espouse a specific faith or faiths. But science does not understand the physical plane succinctly, less the etherial states. I believe in more than the physical universe by my experiences even if science cannot validate these possibilities.

"Theism is the practice of claiming to know the answers to these questions.
A-Theism is the opposite of that.

Get it?"

Yet you claim that God definitely does not exist. By your definition you are then theistic.
(I knew that you were a fundamentalist! :-) )

If you do not know these answers, then you could not state that God does not exist. Being answerless, of course.

Timmy2, Justilthen.

An interesting thread.

Timmy2 I think you are slightly off on Theism, which is the belief in at least one deity, but I get your point. Religion can get stuck on the answers are set in stone.

Religion can be a very useful tool to help people cope, evolve spiritually, morally in that people are tying to be “better than they were yesterday” (better is relative, but that is another debate). It can help people explore the questions of where did I come from, what happens when I die and what is my place in the universe, what is the meaning of life.

Exploring these questions are worth while endeavors even if it is just something that leads people to do “better”. It is when we think we have the final answer that religion gets in trouble.

Imagination is what drives our knowledge as a species. Most scientific discoveries would not have been made without imagination, thinking of what is possible. We sometimes find we can not obtain what we imagine, but we try. Everyone believes something.

The Detroit Lions could win the Super Bowl. Improbably, yes. Impossible, probably not. In the end I am thankful to be a Vikings Fan, but is that any better :)

I think we are much less than we could be and some day we will be much more than we imagine. This applies whether you are a philosopher, spiritualist, religionist or an atheist. When will we get there? The answer depends on how hard we are willing to look and how open were are to what is possible.

timmy2:

"In science, we are all energy/matter, made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe."

So what is this "energy" stuff, if it is other than molecular energy of elements? If it is just elemental energy, what explains that? If it is nothing but 'physicality' then the thinking "I" is nothing but physicality. Who you think you are and what you associate yourself as being is nothing more than combined chemical interactions, etc......................... ... . . .
What explains that?

"We are all one. We also know from science that energy never dies, it simply changes form. My spirituality is a scientific one. I know that my energy will simply change forms when I die. No need to believe in anything supernatural or any folklore myths.

You are starting to sound a bit religious again.

"Believing in Heaven does not help people cope with death. It helps them not cope with death. It assists them in denial.

It certainly CAN assist in denial. And it CAN assist living more vibrantly. It DOES do both, for different people.
But what would they be denying, timmy? Tell me that you know that there is nowhere that the consciousness we are goes after death. There is no afterlife. No heaven/hell/purgetory/next incarnation...

How could anyone affirm knowledge past death? How can you say YOU know?

I don't care that much in the moment. I have no interest in changing any of your beliefs. I question them and challenged them, but have no need past that.
I do not make absolute statements as if they are fact. That is the work of fanatics. I do not say "You are wrong" and mean it, only as a mirroring. I do not say anything is or is not true, exists or does not absolutely, unless there is some real evidence to back it up.
You are more a fanatic than me. You adhere to a belief system that is based on too many assumptions for me. I prefer the possibility that everything can be possible.
Even peace. Even something more perfect than this little world.

Even magical dragons timmy.

Justilthen

You said:
"The universe is incomprehensibly vast. Do you KNOW the limits of it, timmy? Say yes, and I am happy to end here. I will bow to you, your Knowledge, and bow out of this dialogue"

No I do not know the limits of the universe nor do I know it's origin if it has one at all. No one does. That is the point.

Religion is pretending to know these things definitively. That is why religion is bad. Because no one knows the origin of the universe or the origin of life, if either of those things has an origin at all, which they may not. Life and the universe may have always existed or maybe not. no one knows. Scientists and atheists are the only one's who admit this. It is the religionist who think that they KNOW the answers to these questions. You have it backwards.

How did the universe get here?
How did life begin?

I don't know.
Science does not know.
You do not know.

Theism is the practice of claiming to know the answers to these questions.
A-Theism is the opposite of that.

Get it?

timmy2,

"No one has yet to discount categorically the existence of magic dragons. So I believe that they exist?

Same thing."

I would not use these examples as the 'same thing', but for you, sure.

The universe is incomprehensibly vast. Do you KNOW the limits of it, timmy? Say yes, and I am happy to end here. I will bow to you, your Knowledge, and bow out of this dialogue.

Point is that we DO NOT KNOW what it contains, what is possible, what is causal.
COULD magic dragons exist?
YES, they could, as far as I know. But I do not know.
Is it IMPOSSIBLE for magic dragons to exist?

My answer is no, because nothing proves that is an impossibility in this universe. Until it is proven to be otherwise, I believe that EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

So, OK, same thing.

Hello timmy2,

All that you seem to be doing is prop up your argument that God does not exist. In every sentence you deny even the possibility that an Intelligent Cognitive Source, (lets say an ICS! :-) ) could have been causal in creation of this universe.
Fine for me if you want to believe that. It is still belief, though, timmy. There is no fact that backs up a negation of the possibility that ICS exists. You may not have proofs that ICS DOES exist, but that does not negate it either, as your faulty logic implores you. You wrote:

"I can not prove that God does not exist. But I am not wrong when I say that that he does not exist, because for me to be wrong about that, someone would have to have proof that he does exist. Nobody can prove that anything does not exist. We can only prove that things do exist."

Do you practice burying your head in the sand philosophy as a form of logic?
Scientists thought the earth was flat, and proved it with their theories and formulas, and assumptions!, until it was proven to be round. Electrons were unknown until they were proven. They existed, were, and we finally caught up to the truth of that bit of universal functionality when we did.
Those that did not believe in the atomic nature of cellular rejuvenation were not right just because cellular level science had not yet been proven.

I am happy to agree with an assessment of the Bible as being human written verse. I disagree that christianity was invented by roman politicians, but would agree that politicians and clergy manipulated the early beliefs to suit themselves. Your assertion that monotheism was created in the bible is blind to the fact that it arose in ancient Egypt two millenia before Christ.

Your rant on magical dragons is valueless to me as some proof.

The existence of any non-embodied, ( or even a embodied one!) spirit consciousness is at this point non-provable. The extension of that would be that you, as a conscious and thinking entity do not exist, for there is no validation that life is anything beyond biological. But biology does not explain your thoughts.

So you do not exist, timmy, and are just a body that thinks that it thinks.

Someone commented:

>>It is the other way around: Nature is infinitely great - religion is a projection of the limited human thinking onto the universe.

One could just as easily say:

There is a power out there in the universe that is infinitely great and science is a projection of the limited human thinking onto the universe.....

....which makes more sense when you admit that man can only postulate and guess how the origins of the universe and how components of the infinite numbers of galaxies work in harmony
..how these all came into being.

IMHO, I often find it very interesting how man can plan and create on a scale that can be quite wonderous and awe inspiring...yet many deny and try to convince believers in God that there is no possible way that there is a power, if you will, in this universe of infinity that can do the same, but on a much grander scale.

Puny human beings we are if we even remotely think we are the center of the universe.

justilthen says:

"But I am a believer in God. And no one has yet to discount catagorically the existence of an intellegent Source of this infinitely vast and incomprehensible universe"

No one has yet to discount categorically the existence of magic dragons. So I believe that they exist?

Same thing.

frederic2:

"Religions are invented by the limited human mind forced to MINIMIZE the greatness of the universe in order to have at least a tiny proxy understanding they can cope with, for the time being."

I'd agree that religions are CREATED by limited human minds to attempt to COMPREHEND a universe that is incomprehensibly great, vast complex, and awesome in it's diversity and beauty.
In order to maintain a grasp on the limitlessness of the universe it is essential for the human mind to put it in a smaller box.

I believe that this is not limited to religions. Philosophy has yet to understand the human phyche, beyond the level that it does. Science is looking for a grand overarching theory of the universe, but to this point are still, undoubtably, elementary. Our human science looks at miniscule bits of physicality while seeking to understand the whole of the universe.
Religion does the same.

"No, Justilthen et al.:
It is the other way around: Nature is infinitely great - religion is a projection of the limited human thinking onto the universe."

I never suggested that religion was God, or that religion was some ultimate answer or Truth. It, and they, are not.

But I am a believer in God. And no one has yet to discount catagorically the existence of an intellegent Source of this infinitely vast and incomprehensible universe.

marcedward,

Believe me, I'm certainly no apologist for President Bush. But your blinders in regards to President Clinton and his "war" on terrorism prevents you from seeing the truth.

"The bombers of the WTC are in jail"

---> First, the bombers were only caught because one knucklehead wanted his $400 truck rental deposit back. It certainly wasn't because President Clinton brought pressure to bear. Second, since when do we simply disregard those responsible for funding and training the poor souls ordered to carry out such an attack? Doesn't that guarantee more attacks in the future? (Which it did, obviously).

"Yep, three months into the Clinton administration, and all the guilty folks were caught, tried, convicted, and are rotting in Jail. Osama of course is still at large!"

---> So, Clinton had almost TWO full terms to catch (or kill) Bin Laden and he failed? Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be so unforgiving. But the fact that President Clinton MADE ONE ATTEMPT to capture or kill him does. And why didn't he order more airstrikes? Because he was catching too much grief that the missile strikes were a ploy to turn the media attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. His lack of conviction or any sort of backbone is staggering to say the least.

"Clinton started the war against Al Qaeda"

---> I'm sorry, but how exactly did President Clinton start the war against Al Qaeda? Did he destroy training camps operating openly in Afghanistan? Did he freeze assets of known terrorist organizations based in the U.S.?

The difference between very religious people and religious moderates has to do with mental health. I will use Christians as my example, since I am most familiar with them.

A conservative, fundamentalist, or fantatic Christian is obsessed with the word "Jesus." Everything is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, all of the time. They are obsessed with reading the Bible, and memorizing it, and with praying and talking to God, and attributing every little happenstance and occurance to God and to Jesus.

Many of these people assume a psychological state of mental conformity to a doctrine, which is unshakealbe and unreasonable. There is a lot that is obseseive and compulsive in this kind of "religious" practice. It may even be psychotic or paranoid; I do not know, I am not a psychologist, but I know "crazy" when I see it.

A religious moderate tries to integrate religion into a healthy view of life, and tries to be respectful of the beliefs of others, and not let the subject of religion, in general, become too intrusive and destructive in socail relationships.

So? There really is a big, big difference between the modertes and fanatics.

I can't disagree with a single thing Susan has said here. Religious belief functions on a continuum, and in it's most virulent forms keeps company with various kinds of ideological extremism existing at a far end of that continuum of culture-based belief.

In the same way, global terrorism is varietous, and is only homogeneous in it's essential intent to wreak havoc and destruction on perceived 'enemies'.... since chaos is at the heart of terrorism, it really values nothing human, in spite of those that would attribute 'rational' causes for completely irrational & (self)destructive behavior. So how do you combat this insanity?

Are there any political solutions on the horizon?I doubt if the Obama administration really has any ready answers - hopefully future governmental policies in the making will be more (far more) intelligent, comprehensive and far-sighted in this regard as compared to anything we've seen in the last 8 years - but we won't see an end to the threat of terrorism in this generation.

Even now we're seeing predictions of impending bio-chemical attacks within the next 5 years. With Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, incipient religious fanaticism, and governmental instability, it is rightfully being cast as a true epicenter of global terrorist threats in the future.

Philosophically, I kind of like Timmy's idea that everything is either matter or energy, or is transiting between these two 'states' - everything in the universe consists of the same 'stuff', regardless of what form it may take.

So religion, politics, science, and various other pasttimes occupy our attention while we transition back and forth from energy to matter, and back again. Our beliefs, our theories, our good or bad fortune are based on our present (evolutionary) capacity to apprehend the relative 'truth' of things - and thus get beyond egoistic preoccupations with extreme political and religious ideologies fueled by our more primitive emotions. The will to prevail is equally strong between friend and foe alike.

Seeing into the complex mechanism of workable survival strategies is exactly what is necessary in the course of making intelligent, rational, and mutually beneficial decisions locally and globally. We are in dire need of an infusion of real brain power in Washington, coupled with the development of sensible and intelligent foreign, international, and domestic policies. This would certainly be a good place to start.

I have no doubt we elected the right people to begin working on the vast conundrum that is global terrorism. It's most unfortunate that this is not the only major problem that the Obama administration is inheriting. Talk about multi-tasking!

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Hmmm, not orthodox Jewish? Are you sure??

Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then?

The OT must go whether you are or are not!!!!

Timmy2,

I fully agree.Religions are invented by the limited human mind forced to MINIMIZE the greatness of the universe in order to have at least a tiny proxy understanding they can cope with, for the time being.

The universe in its inaccessible greatness (great in every sense of the word!) is so far superior to the small thinking possibilities of the religions.

No, Justilthen et al.:
It is the other way around: Nature is infinitely great - religion is a projection of the limited human thinking onto the universe.

the grand delusion.

america is not world apolo who carry the earth ball on his head and shoulder., other people exist and they can help.

the american ideology (juchristianity +human secularism)is not the best ideology for the world .,other ideologies exist and can help.

if america and its ideology can get rid of this ,grand delusion ,things will be much better.

the factual grand fiasco is,

g bush invaded peoples land,killed thousands of humans and stranded milions of people because:

1- god told him so!!!!!!
2-he wanted to spread DEMOCRACEY!!!!

is there any diference between the american delusion and the communism delusion ?

Justilthen,

You said:
"Religion has given billions the hope that they are more than nothing, and came from more than nothing"

Who ever said that we are nothing and came from nothing? Not me.
I am not religious and I believe that I am more than nothing and came from more than nothing. I do not need to believe in something supernatural to believe those two things.

You said:
It has given them the hope that they will go on after their deaths to something"

In science, we are all energy/matter, made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe. We are all one. We also know from science that energy never dies, it simply changes form. My spirituality is a scientific one. I know that my energy will simply change forms when I die. No need to believe in anything supernatural or any folklore myths. Believing in Heaven does not help people cope with death. It helps them not cope with death. It assists them in denial.

You said:
"hope, enrichment of love, belonging"

None of these things require religion or belief in any God. I have all of these things with no religion or God belief.

You said:
"connection to what is greater, righteous and supremely loving"

Greater? Greater than what?

Righteous? says who? This is the kind of talk that starts wars.

Supremely loving? Is that why he killed all of humanity twice in a fit of rage?
Is that why he created childhood cancer? Is that why he created tsunamis?
Is that why he sends us to hell for simply not believing in him? Supremely loving? Nice way to show it. Can you tell me how God shows us his love?

CCNL, Bagel:

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Unfortunately, you just cannot get past your 3 B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Judaism. Accepting the mythical nature of most of the OT as has been done by many Conservative Jews and their rabbis is a quick cure. It also will go a long way in correcting the flaws and errors of the NT and koran because OT myths are so heavily used in these books of myth and embellishments.

HUH? Orthodox Judaism? Are you insane? (Don't answer.) You know very well I'm not Jewish, have never been, am a self-liberated former christian.

Too bad you can't say the same for your benighted self.

That said, CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks.

drumsalot,

what the hell are you talking about?

You must be confused.

"Justilthen,

You are speaking nonsense.

For you to say that God does not exist and that you are right is well, simply wrong."

Go back and re-read the posts... I am not a non-believer.
Talk to Timmy2.

Make sure you give him a nice strong one first to make dialogue easier. He may be one of yours and does not know it. Thinks that religion is the cause of all problems.
Fundamentalists!

ccnl- observer has stated he is not Jewish.

Athena- you're completely right. I'm privileged to know some of them and can never thank them enough.

The reason that the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 is because of a whole lot of intelligence professionals, law enforcement, and military personnel who have dedicated their lives to making sure that it never happens again. Period. Whether it happened under a Republican or Democratic administration makes no difference. It's AMERICANS that have dedicated themselves to this cause, not Democrats or Republicans. They worked the long hours for not a whole lot of money and even less recognition.

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured in 2008

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto (2007) and Theo Van Gogh (2004)

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops 3,394 combat and 815 non-combat) and 89,544 – 97,762
Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Recently Libya agreed to pay $1.5 billion to the victims of their terrorist activities Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they have threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! Or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel hopefully a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. North Korea was taken off the terrorist country list recently.

6. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

7. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

8. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

9. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

10. Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

11. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

12. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

13. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

14. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

15. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Unfortunately, you just cannot get past your 3 B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Judaism. Accepting the mythical nature of most of the OT as has been done by many Conservative Jews and their rabbis is a quick cure. It also will go a long way in correcting the flaws and errors of the NT and koran because OT myths are so heavily used in these books of myth and embellishments.

globalone writes
'This post indicates you have developed a strong case of selective amnesia. Or, worse yet, you are trying to make an argument by splicing technicalities (that is, American lives are less important if they are killed or injured outside the continental US).'

Well, it's not the job of the POTUS to portect every portion of the globe.

'In chonological order, the terrorist attacks brought upon US citizens during the Clinton administration:
1) 1993 - World Trade Center Bombing (killing 6 and injuring 1,000)'

Yep, three months into the Clinton administration, and all the guilty folks were caught, tried, convicted, and are rotting in Jail. Osama of course is still at large!

'2) 1995 - Car bombing outside American run military training center in Saudi Arabia'

Not on US soil.
Same w/#3
4) 1998 - Car bombs destroy US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania (

Clinton failed to get Osama, but made a number of missile strikes at him and his holdings.

'5) 2000 - Suicide bombers strike the USS Cole refueling off the coast of Yemen'

Clinton knew it was Al Qaeda only during transition to Bush administration. It was Bush's job to respond and he failed.

'And what was President Clinton's response?'

The bombers of the WTC are in jail. The bomber of the OK City building is dead. The Olympic Park bomber is rotting in jail. Clinton started the war against Al Qaeda, warning Bush of the danger of terrorism. Of course Bush did nothing.

"And we might as well stop deluding ourselves about the ability of any American government to immunize us against another terrorist attack on our own soil I don't know why there has been no new terrorist attack here since Sept. 11, 2001, but I'd be willing to bet it has nothing to do with any actions the Bush administration did or did not take. And if there were another attack during Obama's term of office, I'm sure it will have nothing to do with anything he does or fails to do. Any sensible person needs only to look at the New York subway system, with its hundreds of entrances and millions of passengers, to know that there is no real defense against 10 or 20 people who are willing to die to sow fear and havoc in our population."

To say that the Bush adnimistration has nothing to do with the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 is laughable at best. The Patriot Act has everything to do with it. Taking the war to the terrorists in a pre-emptive manner has everything to do with it. You are living in a dream world to think that diplomacy works with these radicals. These radical Muslims have sworn death to all who donot believe in their Allah for centuries. How do you excercise diplomacy with these people effectively? Answer: It's immpossible. They donot want peace. They want the entire world to live under Sharia Law.

Justilthen,

You are speaking nonsense.

For you to say that God does not exist and that you are right is well, simply wrong.
I cannot prove to you nor would I try to prove to you that God exist because to believe in God is about Faith. The proof that God exists is within the beholder of faith for whom has expirienced their own testimonial events that proves to them that God is real. Therefore, for me to say God exists and that I am not wrong is just as ludicrous as you saying that He doesn't exist and that you are not wrong. You cannot prove that the bible is full of lies and made up stories no more than i can prove it is all Truth.

Arminius

Yes, moonshine is an industry. Because of social drinkers, not because of extreme alcoholics.

And read the posts. I made the point that if the moderate majority of religious people all stopped believing in God and gave up religion for reason and rationalism and humanism and such, then religious extremism would eventually disappear. Susan then tried to counter my point with the analogy that if all social drinkers gave up drinking, alcoholism would still exist.

I hope you understand now why the alcohol analogy, and now your moonshine analogy are not at all meaningful here.

How wrong! Israeli victims of terror are far more worthy of sympathy than Palestinian victims of Israeli state terror.

The dead of Dier Yassin would surely agree.

justilthen

I can not prove that God does not exist. But I am not wrong when I say that that he does not exist, because for me to be wrong about that, someone would have to have proof that he does exist. Nobody can prove that anything does not exist. We can only prove that things do exist.

Now while I can not prove that God does not exist, I can prove beyond any REASONABLE doubt that the people who wrote the Bible, where the concept of the monotheistic God was first created, were lying, or making it up. I can prove that the Christian religion was invented by Roman politicians to subjugate and control the masses, because it is a matter of historical record.

Now, to say something like "well sure I know that the Bible is all myth and made up, but that doesn't mean that there is no God". Is the equivalent of saying "well sure, I don't believe in "Puff The Magic Dragon," or any of those dragons from those folklore books, because I know they were just making it up, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any magic dragons does it?"

I'm afraid it does. It does mean that there aren't any magic dragons. Because outside of those folklore books, there is no rational reason to believe that Magic Dragons exist.

I can not prove that magic dragons do not exist. But I am not wrong when I say that magic dragons do not exist. They don't. And neither does God.

can you see any other reason, outside of what was written in those folk lore books from ancient primitive times, to believe that God exists?

Timmy2,

Moonshine has been a cottage industry in America and elsewhere for centuries. Prohibition simply made it bigger.

I did not see where Susan posed the question "...what would happen to extreme religion if religious moderates quit being religious of their own accord, not if religion were made illegal." Could you please explain?

I had such hope for you, timmy2. Oh well...

Religion has done billions and billions of good things for those that believe it is good, and use it for good in their lives and in interacting with the lives of others. I will not waste my time going into the obvious with you.
But for your one thing: it has given billions the hope that they are more than nothing, and came from more than nothing, and will go on after their deaths to something... Faith, hope, enrichment of love, belonging, connection to what is greater, righteous and supremely loving.... Stuff that is hard to come by in physical body.

It has also done a world of hurt when it is used as a vehicle to exclude, judge and sentence others.

"Is it ever a good thing to believe in something that is definitely not true?"

You can no more prove to me that God in definitely not true than I can prove to you that God definitely exists. Prove it.

Hey timmy.
You are wrong.

How's it feel?

Justilthen

I was only harsh with the last sentence because Susan basically called me "more irrational than religion itself" for stating that if religious moderates all stopped being religious, that religious extremism would eventually cease to be. I am right, and she is wrong, and if she is going to call me irrational then I am not going to treat her with kid gloves. She is wrong. Her alcohol analogy was idiotic and in the same breath she insults me? I'll not hold my tung.

Justtilthen

You said:

"Belief in God has come naturally to humans. For at least one or two eons."

Does that make it true?
Does that make it a good thing?
Can you name one good thing that belief in God does for people?
I can name thousands of bad things that it does. Can you name one good thing?

Is it ever a good thing to believe in something that is definitely not true?

timmy2,

Right on! Well said. Maybe you are not so extremist...
Except that part at the end where you needed to be just a wee dram harsh:

"You and Susan are both wrong."

Arminius

Most of the people who drank moonshine were social drinkers.
The question was "what would happen if all but the extreme alcoholics stopped drinking?" That means all people who drink socially now decide of their own accord to stop drinking. There would not be a market for even moonshine then. As I said, most people who drank moonshine were social drinkers. Abusive alcoholics alone are not enough of a market to even keep a moonshine industry alive. Not to mention the fact that alcoholics would not exist in the first place were alcohol not socially accepted thing to do.

Your misunderstanding is because you forgot that moonshine came about because of prohibition, not by way of most people deciding to stop drinking as a new life philosophy. The analogy that Susan was trying to make is what would happen to extreme religion if religious moderates quit being religious of their own accord, not if religion were made illegal. You and Susan are both wrong.

Arminius Author Profile Page:

Timmy2,

"Excuse me... have you ever heard of Moonshine? Home brew?"

With all due respect, the postulation here is not whether or not alcoholics are creative in getting their wee nip. It is IF there were no moderate drinkers would extremist drinkaholics grow or shrink in number.

I posted on this earlier, and then Timmy2 went at it. (Likes it a bit strong I fear, timmy does.) The question of whether extremist religiosity would increase or decline if religious moderation disappeared.
My parents were young adults during prohibition, and my father cheerfully brewed his own stuff. I grew up in moonshine country, where all counties were dry, and moonshine was probably the area's most valuable product. If alcohol is not available in stores, then people will make it.

Susan Jacoby writes:

Meanwhile, Africa's oil and precious metals--which, among other things, could be used by developed countries in exchange for desperately needed water supply projects--go to enrich the ruling tribal oligarchies that benefit from constant instability."
_____________________________
WHO BUYS THEM, thus supporting those tribal dictators, corrupt dictators like the pig, Mubarak, etc. Duh
-----------------------------
Fear about India has another source. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.
-----------------------------

Be careful about using in your posts words like "stupid." They could come back to haunt you. I'll get to "morally bankrupt" down the line.

Hey, timmy2,
Reading your post, I think there is a place for you in a madras, or at least a christian summer boot camp for Jesus or a nice settlement in the occupied territories with a Galil.

Not to say that there was not extremism in the beginnings of many religions. But then they were usually having to compete against well entrenched state mandated religions, and had to be rebellious by nature, as they were often contradictory to practiced theology.

Belief in God has come naturally to humans. For at least one or two eons.

Peace be on your head, timmy.

Hey arminius- yes indeed there are tribes within ethnic groups. Not just Africa- but in the Americas too, and in the pacific islands. The difference is that tribes went to war over resources- food, land, water,riches, sometimes women, and slaves... but battling over religion was rare, if it existed at all. Even the wars of the old testament really weren't religious wars but wars over resources or to establish the 12 tribes. Jews fought to establish position but not to convert. They were wars of survival, not wars of ideas, the way the Crusades were, or many of the battles of the last 2000 years.

Susan_Jacoby:

Susan Jacoby

"I'm amused, and not surprised, at the number of predictable posts insisting that religion has nothing, or very little, to do with terrorism and ethnic/tribal violence."
"At the very least, such episodes lay bare the falsity of the claim that religion is a sustaining force for good."

You appear to jump to a number of conclusions and I am not sold on the idea that they are all valid.
Well, neither are mine, all valid...
I do not know that many have negated the effect and responsibility of religion in conflicts. Some have suggested that religion is not a big deal. I disagree. But is religion fundamental, or rather causal?
There was a short discussion a couple of days ago posted by Miller and Quinn questioning whether ethnicity or religious practice played a larger role in religious identity. I think this was one of the best questions I have seen posted in some while. It gets to deep issues quickly and directly, if pursued.

Most conflicts have religious overtones, (if not primary coloring!), if you look at them. But is it religion directly or, as the Miller-Quinn post querried, is it not basically tribal. We could call tribe "my family" or "my people". A culture shares many commonalities, not least of which is religion... Religion is one of the most vocal points of conflict. Nothing works so well to rile than "Your God is really the Devil and you are going to hell with that Master!". Hey, instant conflict. Works far better than "Pig-eater, you are going to Hell".

"As for those who assert the unimportance of deaths in Africa, compared to deaths in a financial capital like Mumbai, this is a morally bankrupt and pragmatically stupid view of the world."

Morally bankrupt is agreed. Pragmatically speaking Africa has not been interesting enough for the past few administrations to invest limited, (and slipping), energy and funds to affect. Unfortunately.

"Meanwhile, Africa's oil and precious metals...go to enrich the ruling tribal oligarchies that benefit from constant instability."

Agreed, and many of these tyrants and despots govern based on tribalism.
Yet, look at Saudi Arabia, for instance. Tribalism.
That is not to make it the status quo. But it is common around the world.

CCNL, Bagel,

Too late to take back Joshua. You've posted on his God aided adventures endlessly all over this blog. If you go back on your testimony now, you'll appear psychotic (in contrast to how you generally seem).

More from Mumbai doctors on the work of your Joshua and God inspired murderers of Jews.

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: 'Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,' he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. 'During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis,' an IB source said."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Funny thing is, most of them weren't Israeli. God and Joshua must have misled you folks.

If one traces the history of terrorist activities and atrocities, one "historic" book will be part of this trace i.e. the OT.

However:

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis i.e. almost 10% of the Jewish global population have concluded that the OT is mostly myth, myths that have had in many cases tragic consequences still today since the OT forms the bases of both the NT and koran (the operating manual of the Islamic terror).

To wit:

"New York Times
ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."

Timmy2,

"If all moderate drinkers stopped drinking COMPLETELY, there would be no more mass market for alcohol. No advertising for alcohol. No stores selling alcohol. No alcohol industry. And eventually, over time, perhaps several generations, there would no alcoholics. You are wrong."

Excuse me... have you ever heard of Moonshine? Home brew? My parents were young adults during prohibition, and my father cheerfully brewed his own stuff. I grew up in moonshine country, where all counties were dry, and moonshine was probably the area's most valuable product. If alcohol is not available in stores, then people will make it.

"'Africans and Asians must take responsibility themselves. No westerner has asked Mugabe, or Mobutu or Kibila to behave in the way they are doing now.'

We taught them to behave that way. Sorry if you're that ignorant about how Europe and the USA raped the continent."

In this regard, Jews have been slow learners. I mean it's been two thousand years. Maybe, they'sll start two catch on.

Hi, Marcedward,

What you say about ethnic groups is correct, IMHO. About tribes, I would submit that there can be tribes within ethnic groups. Or tribes within larger groups that are not ethnic. Take the ecumenical group - within that large group are a multitude of often conflicting 'tribes'.

As to Africans at war with each other before the colonizing nations came, the Zulus come to mind.

As for the colonizing nations making things worse, you are certainly right about the Congo.

Susan

If all moderate drinkers stopped drinking COMPLETELY, there would be no more mass market for alcohol. No advertising for alcohol. No stores selling alcohol. No alcohol industry. And eventually, over time, perhaps several generations, there would no alcoholics. You are wrong.

If there were no moderate churches or madras', where children are brainwashed by irresponsible adults to worship a God who does not exist, there would not be anybody to grow up to become religious extremists. Once all of the current religious extremists, (products of moderate institutions) die off, religious extremism would cease to be. You are wrong.

Teaching children to believe in God is extremism in itself.
You need to raise your awareness if you do not see this.
And teaching children to believe in god, is what moderate churches do all day long, every day. You are wrong.

Moderate religion is the mainstreamizing of an extremist ideology.

I repeat, the religious extremists are the only ones who have religion right. Read the books! The original is extreme. How could a moderate version of the original be anything but a support mechanism for the original?

Hello ZZim:

I can easily disagree with your post to Susan Jacoby re being completely protected in the GWB era. All one must say is 9/11.
We have never been less protected, one could argue, or more badly clocked by the 'enemy combatant' than under the watch of GWB.
Lots of excuses could be made here, yet in the absolutist sense that you wrote that reply, none are needed or of value.
The numerous attacks that Globalone notes occured during the Clinton era are valuable to add to a list on terrorist attacks against U S targets. That is different, however, from what Ms. Jacoby seems to be addressing. I could be wrong, and will read again her post. But I believe she was addressing attacks at home, on US soil, and her image of the hundreds of subway entrances suggests that as well. The only inclusion then would be the '93 WTC bombing.

There is no doubt that homesoil protection has been focused on and one assumes given a more critical eye. But intelligence resources and manpower has been drawn away from the home front, as well, being more focused on worldwide "war on terror". Add the confusion that comes from shuffling and regrouping agencies into a Department of Homeland Security and it furthers the questions of effectiveness of homeland defense.

"The NATO forces are not fighting a religious war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

They are. Indeed they are.

The starting point for understanding the christian war against Aghanistan is with a word, ideology, as the eminent Farnaz repeatedly explained. "Ideology" includes history, politics, nation states, ethnicity, the flow of capitol, religion, etc.

The recent terrorist killings in India pale with respect to the current terrorist activities in the Iraq Sunni-Shiite Civil War. US Troops (3,394 combat and 815 non-combat) have and 89,544 – 97,762 Iraqi civilians killed,

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Susan Jacoby:

"The idea that religious extremism will die out as soon as religious moderation dies out is a belief as irrational as religion itself. That's about as logical as saying there won't be any alcoholics if social drinkers stop drinking alcohol."

I do not know where this idea comes from, but on a quick first think, and using your alcohol example, I am not so sure there is not some foundation to think that it could, or would, affect extremism.
Alcohol. If there was no moderate social drinking then a huge section of society, culture, and economy in the west would change. No more the after work drink, a glass of wine with friends, Sunday afternoon bar-b-que, beer and football. (Some may be thinking this could be a great idea!) The local pubs would close, breweries would shut down, vineyards would turn into olive orchards...
With casual and social drinking disengaged from you would have the inevitable judgement of the majority, in their newfound sobriety, judging and looking down on those that still drink.
We can see the effect on tobacco smokers in america as more people, and laws, reject smoking in public.
I think that it would have an effect on extremism.
Where do drinkers go in muslim countries where alcohol is rejected? Does it forment radical drinking or does the pendulum swing in the opposite direction?

Susan Jacoby

Anyone who thinks that the Bush administration kept us "completely safe" is the one who is living in a fantasy world. But perhaps you don't live in a city with hundreds of subway entrances.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Perhaps we are using the wrong phrasing.

You are not completely safe. Nobody is. Something could always happen to anyone. However, it is true that the US government, while under the leadership of GWB, has 100% protected you from all of the numerous follow-up attacks that were in the planning process at the time that the 9/11 attack took place. And there have been no new ones. I understand that you do not FEEL SAFE, but that’s not the same thing as having been completely PROTECTED. Feelings are subject to many things, not all of them real. You were really PROTECTED, even if you did not FEEL SAFE.

Globalone has a great post below laying out additional facts. Thanks, Globalone, well said!

Susan Jacoby

I'm amused, and not surprised, at the number of predictable posts insisting that religion has nothing, or very little, to do with terrorism and ethnic/tribal violence. There's one post from someone whose cousin is a Christian missionary in Jos, and the blogger says his missionary cousin has no fear, because religion really has almost nothing to do with the violence there. That's what I would expect a missionary to say. Missionaries have always denied that their activities have brought anything but good to the impoverished people they are trying to convert. Although I would like to know how anyone can look at rows of corpses of Christians and Muslims who have killed one another and say that religion has nothing to do with the violence. At the very least, such episodes lay bare the falsity of the claim that religion is a sustaining force for good.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My cousin and her husband do not proselytize. Seeking converts openly in a partly Muslim city is a good way to get killed. They run an AIDS clinic for prostitutes. They do it because they believe it is their Christian duty to do so. I think that their mission is a sustaining force for good.

Also, I did not deny that the violence in Jos is wholly unrelated to religion, the connection just isn’t causal. My point was that the root cause of the violence in Jos is not religion. Just because each side is primarily composed of co-religionists does not make it a religious war. That’s a very simplistic viewpoint.

There is a lot of religiously-inspired violence in the world. I don’t deny that. Also, it is entirely possible to be involved in a religious war where only one side has a religious motivation. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan because Islamic extremists attacked us. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are fighting a religious war against the NATO forces in Afghanistan. The NATO forces are not fighting a religious war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

marcedward1,

"Zzim, there is no evidence that Bush has made America any safer than we were before the 911 attacks. The USA had no Al Qaeda attacks on our soil for many years before Bush took office. More importantly, Clinton kept America safer than Bush without violating the law or our constitution, and he put terrorists in jail, while under Bush Osama is free to go where he pleases"
-------------------------------------------------

This post indicates you have developed a strong case of selective amnesia. Or, worse yet, you are trying to make an argument by splicing technicalities (that is, American lives are less important if they are killed or injured outside the continental US).

In chonological order, the terrorist attacks brought upon US citizens during the Clinton administration:

1) 1993 - World Trade Center Bombing (killing 6 and injuring 1,000)
2) 1995 - Car bombing outside American run military training center in Saudi Arabia (killing 7 people, including 5 Americans)
3) 1996 - Truck bombing outside apartment complex in Saudi Arabia housing US military personnel (19 Americans killed, 3 wounded).
4) 1998 - Car bombs destroy US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania (killing 224 people and wounding 5,000)
5) 2000 - Suicide bombers strike the USS Cole refueling off the coast of Yemen (killing 17 Americans and wounding 37)

And what was President Clinton's response? A missile strike against a pharmaceutical plant in Egypt and a failed missile strike againt Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

That's it. A systemic pattern of terrorist activity against the US at home and abroad and the actions taken by President Clinton were failed missile strikes.

marcedward1:

"'Africans and Asians must take responsibility themselves. No westerner has asked Mugabe, or Mobutu or Kibila to behave in the way they are doing now.'

We taught them to behave that way. Sorry if you're that ignorant about how Europe and the USA raped the continent."

Africans and Asians Do need to take responsibility for themselves, as europeans and americans do as well. Certainly western powers had, and have had, periods of power over less fortunate societies and cultures. Some of that was during the so called "colonial era". But are you not a bit arrogant, and ignorant, to claim that we taught them to behave that way? There is no people on the planet that have not in them the inate knowledge of how to hurt, maim and kill others. and to take other tribes under their own control.
It has happened forever, and in Africa long before 'westerners' set foot on the continent it was well practiced.
Unfortunate, but humans know how to cause pain.
Does religion make a better world, or does it just give people some other idea, or possession, to protect and use to justify their own inate darkness?

Eh, marcedward?

Howdy Arminius
I learned to use 'ethnic groups' over 'tribes' in my old African Art History class. Ethnic groups see themselves as different from eachother (in a racial sense) - a Yuroba would see himself as different a Mende just like an Irish guy would see himself as being different from an Italian. I haven't used 'tribal' in a long time so I'm not up on what tribal really means.

I'm not sure that Africans were 'happily killing eachother' on a great scale before the Europeans (and lets not forget the Arab hand in enslaving Africans) showed up. I'm sure they had wars, but a distinct hallmark of Colonial powers is to put ethnic minorities on charge (Tutsies over Hootoos, and forgive my spelling). Traditionally the occupying power would pick one group, make the the group that's educated and runs the government for you while the majority languihes on the bottom (creating resentment till it blows up in massive ethnic conflict). Colonialists certainly made things a lot worse (especially in 'beligan' Congo). It'd be a good thing to wipe out a lot of borders in Africa (and Iraq for that matter) and redraw them to better suit the local populations.

My closest friend is a born-again Christian who is appalled at the crimes committed in the name of Christ. But then she is also appalled at the crimes committed by anyone in the name of any religion. On that we most wholeheartedly agree. the depth of her faith is inspiring, and I look up to her because of the good, kind human being she is, and is because of her faith. the problem is not faith, or non-faith. The problem is the idea that in order for your faith to be true, everyone else's must be wrong. And for that reason, we can only get a shaky detente among all parties (including atheists and agnostics). Faith isn't the issue- respect for others is.

Hello, Marcedward,

First, the history you cite, while quite correct, can not necessarily be applied to today's world, IMHO. Historians generally agree that the 30 Years War was the last of the religious wars. And there is no parallel to the inquisition, in organization, existing today.

Second, is there any real difference in the effects of 'tribal' and 'ethnic' differences? My argument is that any ethnic group feels tribal, and will act accordingly. You know that this is true with the fundamentalists here in America.

Damn right the Limeys and Frogs and Spanish have blood on their hands. So do we Americans. But note that all those 'colonized' (what a pc expression!) peoples had been cheerfully slaughtering each other for centuries before the Limeys, Frogs, Spanish, and Americans arrived on the scene.

Susan Jacoby

The idea that religious extremism will die out as soon as religious moderation dies out is a belief as irrational as religion itself. That's about as logical as saying there won't be any alcoholics if social drinkers stop drinking alcohol. No one hates and despises people of moderate faith more than religious fanatics, whether they engage in terrorism or simply in trying to legally impose their views on the rest of us. They would be thrilled to see the last religious moderate butchered along with the last secularist or atheist.

Can anyone imagine a world in which religious moderation remains prevalent and in the mainstream, but religious extremism fades away?

I sure can't.

Can anyone imagine a world where religious moderation disappears and religious extremism remains prevalent?

I sure can't.

Can anyone name one good thing that religious moderation does for our society that secular moral philosophy can not?

I sure can't.

How can anybody in his healthy senses be a missionary today! The deadly destructive results of religion are so evident, that to be a missionary one has to be completely blindfolded, or worse, voluntarily blindfolding himself. A missionary generally substitutes one superstition for another one, with the conviction to possess the "truth", augmenting his imagined or worse, his real power over the "converted", which is in reality the implicit purpose of all "missioning".

Arminius writes
'I will quibble slightly with one thing, the influence of religion on violence. Obviously it has an influence, but I think it is not a cause but a prime driving force.'

Given the history of the Catholic Church I have to disagree. The RC started the crusades, which led to how many deaths? Would the streets of Jeruselem have run knee deep in blood without the Catholic Church? How about the 30 Years War - would 7,000,000 German civilians have died without the RC urging the 30 years war?

'You must admit that many of the horrendous atrocities in wounded Africa are tribal, even between the same religion.'

Tribal is too simple a word - they are ethnic differences. Africa has hundreds of ethnic groups with their own languages and religions. The problem comes from the colonial powers sticking different groups together in the same 'country' and pitting them against eachother. The Brits have a lot of blood on their hands IMO.

The only difference between moderates and extremists is in how they interpret their faith. Without the need for faith in a religion we eliminate the need to interpret our god's will. Therefore, any amount of belief sows the seeds for extremist activities. There is no "just enough" belief when there are billions of people involved. You're either sane and rational, or you believe in fairies and life after death.

Susan,

You said:
" the difference between moderate and extremist religion is that moderate religion generally translates into belief in positive, humane ethical principles while extremist religion translates into belief in the right to murder and vengeance in the name of Absolute Truth."

Humane ethical principles are PHILOSOPHY and have nothing to do with, nor do they require, belief in a supernatural entity. Moderate religion teaches people that they should because god will punish them if they are not, usually with an eternity of suffering in the afterlife. Would it not be far better for people to be good for goodness sake rather than because the celestial dictator commands it?

If moderate religion is not necessary for people to be good and ethical, and it legitimizes and brings into the mainstream irrational belief in a supernatural entity, is it not complicit in the extremist behavior of the fringes? I think that it most definitely is.

If belief in a supernatural overlord is not necessary for people to be good and ethical, what is it good for I ask? Nothing is the answer.

Love thy neighbor - secular philosophy
Turn the other cheek - secular philosophy
Do unto others... - secular philosophy

Believe in God or burn in Hell - religion

Religion is bad for humans. Period. Both moderate, and extreme.

Religious extremism is the original by the way.
Moderate religion is the abomination of the original, not the other way around.

Susan, I hope that you will see the light that religious moderation is the enabler of religious extremism. And while you are right that we have no chance of de-converting the extremists, we do have a chance of de-converting the moderates into a reasoned approach to morality as opposed to a superstitious one. This is why Sam and Richard feel that hammering the moderates is our only hope.

Imagine if the moderates were to give up completely on God belief. What would the extremists have left? How will they continue to recruit when the vast majority of the world has given up God belief completely? They wont.

religious extremism will die out shortly after religious moderation does.

Hello, Susan Jacoby,

Once more I commend you for reading your blog and replying. Means a lot. It is also fascinating that your post is the most incisive and well written here.

I will quibble slightly with one thing, the influence of religion on violence. Obviously it has an influence, but I think it is not a cause but a prime driving force. Fundamentalist religion fosters, to a pathological degree, tribalism within a religious community, and religion is a fuel to it. The old 'Us vs Them' scenario. You must admit that many of the horrendous atrocities in wounded Africa are tribal, even between the same religion.

England:
Report of the All-party Inquiry into Anti-semitism
http://www.thepcaa.org/Report.pdf
_________________________

US Report on Anti-semitism
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf

_______________________
EU Report on Antisemitism 2001-2007: Updated 2008

http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=449677441f3f3

EU report: widely held that some incendiary information was suppressed

RaoTayi writes
'European colonization was not very pre-meditated, at least not in India.'

Not sure what you mean by that. Certainliy English colonialism in India was better than the colonialism practiced widely in Africa by Europeans. The Belgium's behavior in Congo is a horrific example.

'If Indians had gone to Europe for trade they would definitely have done the same things to europeans that europeans did in india.'

Which things? Cutting off the thumbs of weavers to force them to buy Indian cloth? Mass hangings for men who didn't want to serve in the Indian army?

'Africans and Asians must take responsibility themselves. No westerner has asked Mugabe, or Mobutu or Kibila to behave in the way they are doing now.'

We taught them to behave that way. Sorry if you're that ignorant about how Europe and the USA raped the continent.

'Hopefully africans will get over their tribalism and learn to live together.'

I'm sure in the next 1000 years they will.

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured in 2008

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto (2007) and Theo Van Gogh (2004)

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops 3,394 combat and 815 non-combat) and 89,544 – 97,762
Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

"As if any more disturbing details about the Mumbai massacre could emerge, it's now being reported that many of the victims were also tortured -- and no one more so than the Israelis killed in the Chabad house. DEBKAfile reports that Rivka Holtzberg, wife of the center's rabbi, Gavriel, was also six months pregnant, and that the toddler rescued from the house by his Indian nanny bore bruises indicating that the captors had beaten him."

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2008/12/02/signs-of-torture-on-mumbai-victims-especially-israelis.htm

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Recently Libya agreed to pay $1.5 billion to the victims of their terrorist activities Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they have threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! Or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel hopefully a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. North Korea was taken off the terrorist country list recently.

6. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

7. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

8. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

9. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

10. Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

11. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

12. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

13. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

14. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

15. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Susan Jacoby

I'm amused, and not surprised, at the number of predictable posts insisting that religion has nothing, or very little, to do with terrorism and ethnic/tribal violence. There's one post from someone whose cousin is a Christian missionary in Jos, and the blogger says his missionary cousin has no fear, because religion really has almost nothing to do with the violence there. That's what I would expect a missionary to say. Missionaries have always denied that their activities have brought anything but good to the impoverished people they are trying to convert. Although I would like to know how anyone can look at rows of corpses of Christians and Muslims who have killed one another and say that religion has nothing to do with the violence. At the very least, such episodes lay bare the falsity of the claim that religion is a sustaining force for good.

As for those who assert the unimportance of deaths in Africa, compared to deaths in a financial capital like Mumbai, this is a morally bankrupt and pragmatically stupid view of the world. Africa is rich in natural resources that the entire world could use, but those resources cannot do anyone any good in the absence of stable democracy. And nearly all of the violence in these countries has a religious/tribal basis. Meanwhile, Africa's oil and precious metals--which, among other things, could be used by developed countries in exchange for desperately needed water supply projects--go to enrich the ruling tribal oligarchies that benefit from constant instability.

Finally, anyone who thinks that the Bush administration kept us "completely safe" is the one who is living in a fantasy world. But perhaps you don't live in a city with hundreds of subway entrances.

I hail from India and used to hold the stereo typical anti-colonialist views. That ran from how the oppressive west subjugated Africa and Asia, etc, etc. However, as i grew older and started to learn more about the European history my views have become less sharp and more even - I would like to think. European colonization was not very pre-meditated, at least not in India. If I were to look at the ruling classes in Asia, or Europe were about the same very decrepit - from today's standards. If Indians had gone to Europe for trade they would definitely have done the same things to europeans that europeans did in india. The european kings and princes were a squabbling lot, just like their indian counterparts vain and jealous critters. The difference was the europeans were more risk taking and adventurous back then and indians were mor moribund society, which was arrogantly introverted. Europeans also had the advantage of better technology and less superstitious than asians. So lets not beat westerners with the wet noodles.

Africans and Asians must take responsibility themselves. No westerner has asked Mugabe, or Mobutu or Kibila to behave in the way they are doing now. It is unfortunate that they do. There are no angels (metaphorically speaking)there any intervention by west would only be the repeat of 18th and 19th century european colonization or promoting one thug over another. Hopefully africans will get over their tribalism and learn to live together.

I hail from India and used to hold the stereo typical anti-colonialist views. That ran from how the oppressive west subjugated Africa and Asia, etc, etc. However, as i grew older and started to learn more about the European history my views have become less sharp and more even - I would like to think. European colonization was not very pre-meditated, at least not in India. If I were to look at the ruling classes in Asia, or Europe were about the same very decrepit - from today's standards. If Indians had gone to Europe for trade they would definitely have done the same things to europeans that europeans did in india. The european kings and princes were a squabbling lot, just like their indian counterparts vain and jealous critters. The difference was the europeans were more risk taking and adventurous back then and indians were mor moribund society, which was arrogantly introverted. Europeans also had the advantage of better technology and less superstitious than asians. So lets not beat westerners with the wet noodles.

Africans and Asians must take responsibility themselves. No westerner has asked Mugabe, or Mobutu or Kibila to behave in the way they are doing now. It is unfortunate that they do. There are no angels (metaphorically speaking)there any intervention by west would only be the repeat of 18th and 19th century european colonization or promoting one thug over another. Hopefully africans will get over their tribalism and learn to live together.

Ms. Jacoby,

I like much of what you say. Question some of it. You ended with:
"There is no arguing with nonrational and antirational conviction, so the normal tools of diplomacy and military action are of limited usefulness. But let us try diplomacy once again..."

I agree with the need for using honest diplomacy again, resuscitating Americas moral fiber by shutting down GITMO and legalized use of torture, and serious and honest inter-faith dialogue.
The use of military action becomes, unfortunately, one of the only tools for countering 'terrorism', especially by radicalized religious zealots. They have no interest in dialogue. They are far past that desire, if there ever was one.
Dialogue with those that can affect and influence radicals can be useful, if there are those that will benefit from accords being made. Usually once a group chooses violence, especially indiscriminate violence done with the intention of creating panic as was the case in Mumbai, then they have gone over a line not easily recrossed.
Military action is the language that they comprehend.

I resent the Bush administration for placing us deeper into the need to resort to military force as a requirement for defense, now.

Marcedward1,

While allowing for the reality of Realpolitik, I think that Ms Jacoby is appealing to a higher plane of morality. Senseless killing hurts all in the world, and violence always begets more violence. And what makes you think that all those resources, of which Africa is abundantly blessed, will flow freely in this climate of murder? Are the riches of the Congo still getting out easily? How about oil in Nigeria? So our attention, necessarily, is drawn to regions of foreign policy interest; true, and reasonable. But should we ignore the rest? Should the rest of the world ignore the rest? Anyway, Bush's ego trip in Iraq has not done much for the oil supply.

To ZZIM:
Thank you very much for your comments that brought rational thought and actual first-hand knowledge about the particulars in the Africa case to the discussion here. Very well said, on both counts.

(One such as myself can be opposed to much of what the current administration did without saying that nothing that has been done increased our protection from immediate terrorist threats. The long-term implications are far different--sewing seeds that could sprout into greater difficulties in the future. Hopefully, the new administration will convey a far different attitude to the world, and abide by Geneva convention rules.)

May wisdom prevail over knee-jerk reactions to complex issues.

This column proves one thing - Susan Jacoby lives in a fantasy world.

Fundamentalism is a sort of psychological state that people fall into, in which they have but one decision to make, the decision of mental conformity to a doctrine, dogma, or ideology. This is some sort of reaction to a dangerious world; this conformity of thought to predetermined belief and action makes life's decisons easier and perhaps seems safe.

But I note, if this mental conformity is intense, and if it should be suddenly and powerfully threatened, or if it should even give way to sudden overwhelming doubt, the Fundamentalist frame of mind collapses into the Nihilist frame of mind, in which complete faith in God is transformed into limitless, destructive fury, at everyone and everything.

Religious belief and fervor can be destructive, dangerous, and explosive; it is a myth that being religious is always and automatically a good thing.

Zzim, there is no evidence that Bush has made America any safer than we were before the 911 attacks. The USA had no Al Qaeda attacks on our soil for many years before Bush took office. More importantly, Clinton kept America safer than Bush without violating the law or our constitution, and he put terrorists in jail, while under Bush Osama is free to go where he pleases.

I don't have the slightest idea how the new Obama administration should confront terrorism around the globe or whether any policy is likely to have the slightest impact on the brew of religious, tribal, and political insanity that produces not only terrorism but also genocide in various parts of the world. On Monday, as the death toll in Mumbai rose to 188, at least 364 people were reported dead in the Nigerian town of Jos, after armed groups of Christians and Muslims, battling over a local election, started slaughtering one another with guns and machetes. In the end, I don't think that violence rooted in religious fanaticism can be combatted through rational means.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
By the way, my cousin is a Christian missionary in the city of Jos. She has no fear of the violence, because the religious aspect is only a minor factor in the violence.

Simplified Version For People Without “The Slightest Idea”: North of Jos is a primarily Muslim tribe with a pastoral economy. South of Jos is a primarily Christian tribe with a farming economy. The pasture exists in an east-west band between the desert and the farmland. Global climate change is pushing the desert south. This pushes the pasture and the pastoralists south, too. When the pastoralists are pushed south, they come into conflict with the farmers. The violence is therefore rooted in the old-as-time conflict between farmers and pastoralists. This is conflict not new and is not connected to religion, because it predates the existence of organized religion.

The violence wears a tribal and religious mask because the pastoralist-agriculturalist divide in the Jos area parallels the tribal and religious divide. It’s easy for people without “the slightest idea” and WITH an anti-religious axe to grind to mistake what is happening as being rooted in religion.

One of our greatest strengths in war WAS the american tradition of no torture, started by George Washington. Many of our foes surrendered to us more readily, knowing they would be well treated and not tortured when they surrendered to americans - in contrast to the british and others.

We have lost that weapon - the advantage of that high moral ground, thanks to W and his collection of war criminals. Now we are like everybody else when we look in the mirror. MIrrors are merciless aren't they?

Sorry Susan, but terrorism in India, Europe or the US is more important to US interests than terrorism in Nigeria or Congo. The fact is that centuries of European colonialism has left much of Africa a basket case, and nothing but time is going to fix it. There is not the money, manpower or will in the 'west' to fix what we broke, period. We can get what we need from Africa (materials) while the mindless violence continues, and nobody is going to care.

And we might as well stop deluding ourselves about the ability of any American government to immunize us against another terrorist attack on our own soil I don't know why there has been no new terrorist attack here since Sept. 11, 2001, but I'd be willing to bet it has nothing to do with any actions the Bush administration did or did not take. And if there were another attack during Obama's term of office, I'm sure it will have nothing to do with anything he does or fails to do. Any sensible person needs only to look at the New York subway system, with its hundreds of entrances and millions of passengers, to know that there is no real defense against 10 or 20 people who are willing to die to sow fear and havoc in our population.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

So, Susan Jacoby is convinced that the US government has NO power to affect whether or not we are attacked by terrorists. I think that is absurd. Suppose the Bush administration sent helicopters to drop free, “do not search this passenger” plane tickets from the sky in Afghanistan in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Do you suppose we might have been attacked since then? Yeah, duh. “Nothing” is a strong word. And logically unsupportable. You might even call Susan’s belief a “nonrational and antirational conviction.”

The US government has done many things that make you safer during the last few years. The Obama Administration will keep almost all of them. Because they work. That will confuse ideologically-blinded people who really and truly believe that George Bush has not made us safer. Can Obama keep us 100% safe the way George Bush, has? No, because somebody may slip through at some point. But he has a good chance to and I’m hoping he does.

"stop...acting as if the only violence that counts is terrorism in which westerners die"

Absolutely. Anyone who dies is our kin. Those who flew planes into the WTC were our kin. Both the killers and the killed in Ruwanda are our kin. The term terrorist is simply the latest version of "despicable filthy animal", the same justification Europeans used for exterminating native Americans in early California. This has to stop.

It is obvious that most of the violence is based on religion and religious differences which in many cases results in economic and political discrimination.

World leaders to include BO and his foreign policy advisers first need to promulgate the flaws and errors in the major religions. This should remove the foundations of the terrorist messages and recruitment.

Once this is done, what "hot pockets" of terror activity that do remain should be dealt with force to include cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft rocket attacks anywhere at anytime.

Susan -- do take a look at distinguishing the rational and the irrational. I do not think the distinctions are always as obvious as you imply -- the old trite can one walk a mile in the moccasins of another?