Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Dawkins Scale


fullywired

Recommended Posts

No, Leo.

What you've done is given me the current dictionary definition of the attributes of currently known bananas.

It's not even all the imaginable bananas.

For example - imagine bananas that fall from the sky, like rain. They're man-eating. Every twelfth month, they Tango to classical music for three night's straight and then hunt in small packs to find naughty children to eat for breakfast, like the dizzy little Mozart-loving yellow land piranhas they are.

And if you think that they're funky - you should see the unimaginable ones.

But of course - you can't.

Because they're unimaginable.

Unimaginable. Almost as if... almost as if it was impossible to imagine them. Almost as if a dictionary would be generally incapable of imagining them for you, either.

Unimaginable. Fancy that.

There is nothing you have added that suggests the attributes I supplied are not ubiquitous to bananas. The "man-eating, fallen-from-the-sky, tango-dancing" bananas you claim as repudiating my addressing of your inquiry do no such thing, for they would still have to be edible fruit produced by any of several kinds of flowering plants of the genus Musa - else they would not be bananas.

Even an unimaginable banana would still have to be an edible fruit produced by any of several flowering plants of the genus Musa - again, else they would not be bananas, unimaginable or otherwise.

The attributes I provided completely satisfied the requirements of your question.

So, what attributes must any possible or impossible, imaginable or unimaginable, deity be required to have to be a deity?

Y'know - the conversation is captured in full, in black and white above us.

I think it's entirely obvious that you've changed your mind from imaginable OR unimaginable to imaginable AND unimaginable, possibly because you're somewhat confused as to what the word unimaginable means.

No, I have not attempted to apply a Boolean change to any of my argument. Both the OR and AND qualifiers are applicable depending on whether we are discussing a specific definition of deity, or the broader concept of divinity.

You'll note that I'm a 6 on Dawkins' scale. I don't believe it's possible to disprove all gods.

What I do believe is that a non-trivial subset of gods - namely those that can allegedly interact with the material universe - can be tested for and hence proved or disproved on that basis.

Or - as all the cool kids are calling it these days - Science.

So, you suggest that A can be proved or disproved, but acknowledge that does not prove or disprove B or C. How does that make one an atheist, if athiest means "Believes {A, B, C, ...} does not exist", and agnostic means "Believes {A, B, C, ...} are not known to exist"?

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe in slavery.

I do not believe in genocide.

I do not believe in sending someone to be tortured, and then executed to forgive.

I do not believe in taking my nonvirgin newlywed wife to be stoned to death at her father's

front door.

I do not believe in burning witches.

I do not believe in stoning to death someone that works on the Sabbath, or blasphemes.

I do not believe in slicing a pregnant women's stomach open with a sword.

I do not believe in dashing babies against rocks.

I do not believe in making a burnt offering of the first thing that comes out of my house.

I do not believe in a prolonged death for the animal I will consume.

I do not believe that wanting to believe makes it true.

I do not believe without evidence.

Boy! Being Atheist, or lacking in belief sure makes one lost, and in need of being found.

Are you sure you do not want to share your personal experience to save souls?

How interesting, I don't believe in any of those things either - including belief without evidence. We seem to have more in common than you are prepared to imagine.

I don't need to share my experience to "save souls", what God has provided to me is there for everybody in their own time and measure, I don't imagine myself the purveyor of his wisdom, he hasn't asked it of me either so there is that (and I don't mean via a book, I mean I have no personal "calling" to preach and tell others how to live their life or replicate my experiences. Which would be futile because they are not me and I am not them). I don't live in a paradigm where I imagine a non-believer's soul is in danger of "hell and damnation", I think we all contribute something powerful in our individual journeys to the story of life, judgement is neither my place nor anything that I have any interest in, I have my own journey and it's fun and foibles to deal with, I know pitfalls and enrichments in equal measure, I'm sure we all do and I am enriched by what others believe and see of the world.

More pertinently, I believe in discovering the power of individual pieces of teaching to the depths of their flavour. "Thou shalt not judge, lest thou be judged. For in whatsoever manner ye judge so shall ye be judged" is what I have zest to comprehend all the subtleties of along with "Love one another as I have loved you". I am perceiving a lifetimes worth of work in fully comprehending those if I'm lucky as I journey and that's fine by me, we are complicated beings living in a complicated world with subtle and not so subtle temptations to distract us from what matters most to our own personal spiritual enrichment - there is much to love about humanity and the human journey in life,so very very much.

Edited by libstaK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How interesting, I don't believe in any of those things either - including belief without evidence. We seem to have more in common than you are prepared to imagine.

I don't need to share my experience to "save souls", what God has provided to me is there for everybody in their own time and measure, I don't imagine myself the purveyor of his wisdom, he hasn't asked it of me either so there is that (and I don't mean via a book, I mean I have no personal "calling" to preach and tell others how to live their life or replicate my experiences. Which would be futile because they are not me and I am not them). I don't live in a paradigm where I imagine a non-believer's soul is in danger of "hell and damnation", I think we all contribute something powerful in our individual journeys to the story of life, judgement is neither my place nor anything that I have any interest in, I have my own journey and it's fun and foibles to deal with, I know pitfalls and enrichments in equal measure, I'm sure we all do and I am enriched by what others believe and see of the world.

More pertinently, I believe in discovering the power of individual pieces of teaching to the depths of their flavour. "Thou shalt not judge, lest thou be judged. For in whatsoever manner ye judge so shall ye be judged" is what I have zest to comprehend all the subtleties of along with "Love one another as I have loved you". I am perceiving a lifetimes worth of work in fully comprehending those if I'm lucky as I journey and that's fine by me, we are complicated beings living in a complicated world with subtle and not so subtle temptations to distract us from what matters most to our own personal spiritual enrichment - there is much to love about humanity and the human journey in life,so very very much.

People have their own unique experiences in life, and of course share in experiences.

One time this old man related a story to me of what was to him a miracle.He hiked to this rock outcropping of a scenic overlook to smoke a J.He sat down, pulled out his J, and then did he realize that he did not bring a light.He sighed, let his arms fall to his side.His one hand rested in a crevice inwhich he felt something rest in his hand.He brought his hand up to find a match in it.The old man telling me this old tale was filled with a sense of wonder, and satisfaction.

I asked him was the match the type being an emergency match with a striker tip, and covered in thin wax for waterproofing.He said yes.I asked him if this scenic overlook was near the main trail, and had a worn trail leading to it.He said yes.I asked him if this scenic overlook would attract long term hikers that would carry such matches that would potentialy drop said matches.He almost popped out of his seat.

He did not mention God, but the way he related it I knew it was on his mind.So for decades this guy thought God gave him a match so he can smoke his J while children die from starvation, and disease.

Being distracted by myth is a shame for the human journey which we all share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have their own unique experiences in life, and of course share in experiences.

One time this old man related a story to me of what was to him a miracle.He hiked to this rock outcropping of a scenic overlook to smoke a J.He sat down, pulled out his J, and then did he realize that he did not bring a light.He sighed, let his arms fall to his side.His one hand rested in a crevice inwhich he felt something rest in his hand.He brought his hand up to find a match in it.The old man telling me this old tale was filled with a sense of wonder, and satisfaction.

I asked him was the match the type being an emergency match with a striker tip, and covered in thin wax for waterproofing.He said yes.I asked him if this scenic overlook was near the main trail, and had a worn trail leading to it.He said yes.I asked him if this scenic overlook would attract long term hikers that would carry such matches that would potentialy drop said matches.He almost popped out of his seat.

He did not mention God, but the way he related it I knew it was on his mind.So for decades this guy thought God gave him a match so he can smoke his J while children die from starvation, and disease.

Being distracted by myth is a shame for the human journey which we all share.

Why should he be ashamed? He enjoyed his moment of universal synchronicity. Everything was coming up roses for him and there you were - a wet blanket for no good reason. You said yourself he never mentioned God. That was just your perception of where he was coming from, just as your list of what you don't believe in was a blatant attempt to suggest to others where I would be coming from because I believe in God. You might find some benefit in taking stock of your negativity, it is colouring your perceptions and taking the sunshine out of people's lives before they even get to feel the joy of it on their face - all because of what you imagine they are believing not because of what they are telling you.

If you read what I said, you would never have had cause to mention the bible or that list of things you "don't believe in" - but you want the conversation to enter a downward spiral, I wonder why that is?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should he be ashamed? He enjoyed his moment of universal synchronicity. Everything was coming up roses for him and there you were - a wet blanket for no good reason. You said yourself he never mentioned God. That was just your perception of where he was coming from, just as your list of what you don't believe in was a blatant attempt to suggest to others where I would be coming from because I believe in God. You might find some benefit in taking stock of your negativity, it is colouring your perceptions and taking the sunshine out of people's lives before they even get to feel the joy of it on their face - all because of what you imagine they are believing not because of what they are telling you.

If you read what I said, you would never have had cause to mention the bible or that list of things you "don't believe in" - but you want the conversation to enter a downward spiral, I wonder why that is?

People taking comfort in unreality only perpetuates things wrong in the present reality.On the opposite end of the spectrum there are people that take advantage of the distracted.

I do not expect you to understand out of suppisition based on lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "for certain" bit to distinguish an agnostic from an atheist is I think a red herring. What does "for certain" mean? I don't think it means anything. My opinion (not belief) is that there is no god, but I suppose a very powerful business or political figure could be viewed as a god in certain ways.

I can comprehend an agnosticism as the teaching that finite men and women cannot know the infinite, and distinguish this form of no-god from standard atheism where the negative says there are some things we can know with reasonable certainty, and one of them is no god. Still, when you look at this distinction carefully, you see that either teaching has the same net practical consequence for us -- that there is really no difference at our level of existence.

My opinion (not belief) is that God does exist. Apart from semantics, what's the difference between our two positions? Granted, I've got beliefs about what attributes said "God" holds, but I'm wondering if there's any qualitative difference in the mere existence of such a being in terms of belief and opinion.

In more specific terms, is it appropriate to say "my opinion is that God exists, and my beliefs about said God are as follows...."?

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People taking comfort in unreality only perpetuates things wrong in the present reality.On the opposite end of the spectrum there are people that take advantage of the distracted.

I do not expect you to understand out of suppisition based on lies.

You make to much of an old man's joy in finding a match for his J when it mattered to him most.

As to the second - practice what you preach, the old man didn't mention God, you just created a supposition out of your imagination that he attributed his finding to God - without proof he was going to mention God, the lie is yours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make to much of an old man's joy in finding a match for his J when it mattered to him most.

As to the second - practice what you preach, the old man didn't mention God, you just created a supposition out of your imagination that he attributed his finding to God - without proof he was going to mention God, the lie is yours.

Yes I am a wet blanket for the deluded.

I laid a summery of the story, and just out of his reaction it's obvious what he thought.He was not like "Oh it makes sense now", and he thought the universe made sure he got to smoke that J.

When you want to step out of your delusion let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am a wet blanket for the deluded.

I laid a summery of the story, and just out of his reaction it's obvious what he thought.He was not like "Oh it makes sense now", and he thought the universe made sure he got to smoke that J.

When you want to step out of your delusion let me know.

Read what you wrote "and just out of his reaction" - he was stoked that there was a match there, people get a little giddy when luck goes their way but you have created a whole other level to that giddiness, something that tars and feathers the poor old guy forever and presents him to the world as this new not so finely feathered friend you won't have the decency to take due credit for creating out of your imagination.

As to the last - when people have nothing productive to counter with the accusation of delusion seems to be very popular, I don't know why when it is so obviously a verbal dummy spit but whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have an experience you want to share just PM me.Just tell me if you do not want my opinion, and to keep it to my self.

Public aspersion doesn't bother me, and I always enjoy reading others' opinions.

This is a typical spiritual experience for me. One evening I was spending some time in prayer after having read some Scripture. While I was praying, a different Scripture came to my mind. It was unrelated to the topic I was praying about, so at first I didn't recognize its relevance. Then I realized that the new Scripture was a direct answer to a problem that my friend Tom had mentioned to me several days earlier. I made note of the Scripture so that I could give it to him the next day, as it was too late to call. When I did talk with Tom, I discovered that the exact Scripture had come to him while he was praying. It turns out that we both got the Scripture at about the same time. We surmised that my getting the Scripture was a confirmation that it was specifically for his need at that time. This type of experience has happened to me many times. Once or twice could be coincidence, but dozens of occurrences surely have another explanation. We know what my explanation is; now we await your explanation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an infinite cosmos the laws of probability say you will every now and then get a god of arbitrary ability and power. (I can't think of what such gods are called and haven't been able to find it on the internet). Somebody did the math to show this, but I think probably there was a mistake somewhere as the idea has not been picked up in any big way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing you have added that suggests the attributes I supplied are not ubiquitous to bananas. The "man-eating, fallen-from-the-sky, tango-dancing" bananas you claim as repudiating my addressing of your inquiry do no such thing, for they would still have to be edible fruit produced by any of several kinds of flowering plants of the genus Musa - else they would not be bananas.

And I'm telling you that they're not. Not least because I can imagine them to be otherwise. You'll note the falling from the sky part, for example. They're not produced by flowering plants. They precipitate.

I'm telling you that definitions change to fit the objects they describe, rather than vice versa.

I'm telling you, for example, that plastic bananas exist. Inflatable bananas exist. Genetically engineered, grown-in-a-test-tube bananas exist.

And none of them care less about your definition of what they must be.

No, I have not attempted to apply a Boolean change to any of my argument. Both the OR and AND qualifiers are applicable depending on whether we are discussing a specific definition of deity, or the broader concept of divinity.

I'll reiterate - an AND qualifier makes the entire question impossible. An OR qualifier is utterly unhelpful.

Because unimaginable things are somewhat, y'know.

Unimaginable.

So, you suggest that A can be proved or disproved, but acknowledge that does not prove or disprove B or C. How does that make one an atheist, if athiest means "Believes {A, B, C, ...} does not exist", and agnostic means "Believes {A, B, C, ...} are not known to exist"?

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through how anyone would ever categorically have time to profess their beliefs on an infinite set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm telling you that they're not. Not least because I can imagine them to be otherwise.

I suppose next you'll be arguing that the evolutionary theory of the descent of species is a fallacy, because the classification of species is not "as you imagine"?

Yes, that is where your argument leads - that nothing can have a common classification, and that solipsism is the true reality.

You'll note the falling from the sky part, for example. They're not produced by flowering plants. They precipitate.

All you have argued for, is that there exists some cloud-dwelling species of Musa from which these bananas precipitate.

I'm telling you that definitions change to fit the objects they describe, rather than vice versa.

And when we have a definition that is already in use by one thing, we invent a new, exclusive, definition to describe another exclusive thing. Uncertainty, as part of the definition of a type of belief, is already in use for agnosticism. As atheism is not agnosticism - as what defines atheism is exclusive of what defines agnosticism - then how can uncertainty be an attribute of atheism?

I'm telling you, for example, that plastic bananas exist. Inflatable bananas exist. Genetically engineered, grown-in-a-test-tube bananas exist.

Fake bananas are fake bananas, they are not 'bananas'. Test-tube bananas are still produced from the various flowering plants of the genus Musa, we have simply transplanting the growing mechanism into an artificial environment.

A fruit which looks and tastes like a banana, but which is produced by kelp, is not a banana - but simply something which resembles a banana.

And none of them care less about your definition of what they must be.

I am unconcerned that bananas don't care for how we commonly define them - because that definition is only important to how we are able to communicate between ourselves, not with bananas.

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through how anyone would ever categorically have time to profess their beliefs on an infinite set.

"I am uncertain as to whether any gods exist."

"I am certain no gods exist."

There, done and done. Or do you now wish to argue that {gods} is not an infinite set?

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose next you'll be arguing that the evolutionary theory of the descent of species is a fallacy, because the classification of species is not "as you imagine"?

What I'm telling you is that evidence shapes the theory, not vice versa.

What I'm telling you is that the classification of species has had several overhauls and refinements due to new evidence arising.

The map is not the territory.

The description is not the thing.

All you have argued for, are that there exists some cloud-dwelling species of Musa from which these bananas precipitate.

Sure. Because the dictionary definition of Musa includes cloud-based ones.

They precipitate. Out of thin air. No Musa required. Plus, they're still totally bananas.

And when we have a definition that is already in use by one thing, we invent a new, exclusive, definition to describe another exclusive thing. Uncertainty, as part of the definition of a type of belief, is already in use for agnosticism. As athiesm is not agnosticism; as what defines atheism is exclusive of what defines agnosticism; then how can uncertainty be an attribute of atheism?

The term atheist was coined first.

Also - who said that all definitions were absolutely exclusive?

Fake bananas are fake bananas, they are not 'bananas'. Test-tube bananas are still produced from the various flowering plants of the genus Musa, we have simply transplanting the growing mechanism into an artificial environment.

What about the ones built from the cellular level upwards, from a genome that have never seen a Musa plant?

A fruit which looks and tastes like a banana, but which is produced by kelp, is not a banana - but simply something which resembles a banana.

If people call it a banana, regardless - guess what it is?

I am unconcerned that bananas don't care for how we commonly define them - because that definition is only important to how we communicate between ourselves, not with bananas.

Almost as if it's a symbolic representation of the thing, instead of the thing itself, right?

"I am uncertain as to whether any gods exist."

"I am certain no gods exists."

There, done and done. Or do you now wish to argue that {gods} is not an infinite set?

How can you be certain no god exists or even be uncertain as to whether any gods exist, unless you have absolute knowledge of the infinite sets of gods that can exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read what you wrote "and just out of his reaction" - he was stoked that there was a match there, people get a little giddy when luck goes their way but you have created a whole other level to that giddiness, something that tars and feathers the poor old guy forever and presents him to the world as this new not so finely feathered friend you won't have the decency to take due credit for creating out of your imagination.

As to the last - when people have nothing productive to counter with the accusation of delusion seems to be very popular, I don't know why when it is so obviously a verbal dummy spit but whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

What I meant by "and just out of his reaction" is when he about popped out of his chair when I brought logic, and reason full circle that made the real probability of how the match came to be.

Some people believe that the creator of the universe requires a blood sacrifice to atone for sin, so that to me is a delusion.

What would you think of people that derived comfort in the belief in Batman being real, and tried to get others to believe in Batman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm telling you is that evidence shapes the theory, not vice versa.

What I'm telling you is that the classification of species has had several overhauls and refinements due to new evidence arising.

The map is not the territory.

The description is not the thing.

The map shows us what territory we are mapping. The decription tells us what thing we are describing.

Sure. Because the dictionary definition of Musa includes cloud-based ones.

They precipitate. Out of thin air. No Musa required. Plus, they're still totally bananas.

If they aren't edible fruit produced by various flowering plants of the genus Musa, then they aren't bananas. They might resemble bananas, but they aren't.

The term atheist was coined first.

And not coined as including any uncertainty regarding the existence of any gods.

Also - who said that all definitions were absolutely exclusive?

Some aren't. These are.

What about the ones built from the cellular level upwards, from a genome that have never seen a Musa plant?

They aren't bananas. They resemble bananas but are not bananas. They are banana facsimiles.

If people call it a banana, regardless - guess what it is?

I don't guess, I examine.

Almost as if it's a symbolic representation of the thing, instead of the thing itself, right?

Quite irrelevant in the case of abstracts such as atheism, agnosticism, etc.

How can you be certain no god exists or even be uncertain as to whether any gods exist, unless you have absolute knowledge of the infinite sets of gods that can exist?

For agnosticism, because I have no idea what constitutes evidence of god(s). For atheism - it is a belief, not based on evidential means.

Lack of knowledge is precisely why the agnostic is uncertain, while knowledge (or the lack of) has nothing to do with atheistic belief.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public aspersion doesn't bother me, and I always enjoy reading others' opinions.

This is a typical spiritual experience for me. One evening I was spending some time in prayer after having read some Scripture. While I was praying, a different Scripture came to my mind. It was unrelated to the topic I was praying about, so at first I didn't recognize its relevance. Then I realized that the new Scripture was a direct answer to a problem that my friend Tom had mentioned to me several days earlier. I made note of the Scripture so that I could give it to him the next day, as it was too late to call. When I did talk with Tom, I discovered that the exact Scripture had come to him while he was praying. It turns out that we both got the Scripture at about the same time. We surmised that my getting the Scripture was a confirmation that it was specifically for his need at that time. This type of experience has happened to me many times. Once or twice could be coincidence, but dozens of occurrences surely have another explanation. We know what my explanation is; now we await your explanation.

We are creatures whose brains actively seak patternicity out of evolution to avoid the big cat in the tall grass.Get a bunch of people reading the same Harry Potter book over and over again would have great chances of reading the same chapter.

Coincidences do happen and I have mentioned an experiment I did on myself.I like taking nightly walks so I started praying to myself to find $20 while out on my walk.6 months go by and I find an envelope with $40 dollars in it.I imagined if this was a different situation and I prayed to a God, or Gods.I would have thought my long enduring faith was double rewarded.I have had many other coincidences during my life for example I wanted a Tuna sandwich, and then my friend stops by offering his other half of his Tuna sandwich.

I am sure others reading this can point to coincidences in their life.I can understand thinking that when does coincidence stop being a coincidence.We are creatures that seak meaning in patterns, we have named and personified the stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are creatures whose brains actively seak patternicity out of evolution to avoid the big cat in the tall grass.Get a bunch of people reading the same Harry Potter book over and over again would have great chances of reading the same chapter.

Coincidences do happen and I have mentioned an experiment I did on myself.I like taking nightly walks so I started praying to myself to find $20 while out on my walk.6 months go by and I find an envelope with $40 dollars in it.I imagined if this was a different situation and I prayed to a God, or Gods.I would have thought my long enduring faith was double rewarded.I have had many other coincidences during my life for example I wanted a Tuna sandwich, and then my friend stops by offering his other half of his Tuna sandwich.

I am sure others reading this can point to coincidences in their life.I can understand thinking that when does coincidence stop being a coincidence.We are creatures that seak meaning in patterns, we have named and personified the stars.

Yes, coincidences can be weird, and sometimes meaningless regardless of our search for structure. As you said, at what point does coincidence become something else? How many times does something have to occur before we start looking for its cause?

(And I can't pass this one by: wishing for a tuna sandwich and then receiving makes you a for-tuna teller.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, coincidences can be weird, and sometimes meaningless regardless of our search for structure. As you said, at what point does coincidence become something else? How many times does something have to occur before we start looking for its cause?

(And I can't pass this one by: wishing for a tuna sandwich and then receiving makes you a for-tuna teller.)

LOL! I read dorsal fins too.

The ancient Romans would consult seers that read animal intestines seeing patterns.

One time this women I know was trying to prove astrology to me and handed me her chart she paid someone to make for her.It was four pages with writing on each side.There were four different lines of script she highlighted that fitted her personality exactly.I was like "this is no better than chance, and look at all the extra script you did not highlight".I then asked her how does the planets tell your future when the gravity of the Earth it's self reflects their influence, and not to mention the Sun's gravity.I then told her that the original poisitions of the much far away constellations are in not the same position when this psuedoscience came about hundreds of years ago.She struggled a little bit and then seen the logic in my argument.

We seak meanings in patterns because it's built into us millions of years ago for survival.

Here take 20 minutes for Dr. Michael Shermer's lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we love to identify and categorize everything. Hence, the Dawkins scale, which seems to have a number of in-between values.

I had a similar dialogue with a lady, trying to identify what type of energy the planets were exerting upon us without being overpowered by the earth's similar energy. The dialogue didn't get very far.

It'll be much later before I can view the video, but I do intend to watch it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of belief in a god does not equal more destructive.

Yes, yes it does. I am a resounding 1 on the scale and proud of it. There is a God. A truly wonderful, merciful, gracious God who wants you to feel His love. He is your Heavenly Father who wants a relationship with you, all you have to do is accept. A lack of belief in Him is directly proportional to the destruction in your life and/or the destruction you do to others around you. You are more and more destructive as you fall farther and farther away from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes it does. I am a resounding 1 on the scale and proud of it. There is a God. A truly wonderful, merciful, gracious God who wants you to feel His love. He is your Heavenly Father who wants a relationship with you, all you have to do is accept. A lack of belief in Him is directly proportional to the destruction in your life and/or the destruction you do to others around you. You are more and more destructive as you fall farther and farther away from God.

2 Samuel 12:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I

will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with

thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes it does. I am a resounding 1 on the scale and proud of it. There is a God. A truly wonderful, merciful, gracious God who wants you to feel His love. He is your Heavenly Father who wants a relationship with you, all you have to do is accept. A lack of belief in Him is directly proportional to the destruction in your life and/or the destruction you do to others around you. You are more and more destructive as you fall farther and farther away from God.

In a nutshell!

A wonderful example of how we can attribute negative characteristics and behaviours to those that don't share our ideologies.

Intolerance and ignorance - creating atrocities for millennia.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by "and just out of his reaction" is when he about popped out of his chair when I brought logic, and reason full circle that made the real probability of how the match came to be.

Some people believe that the creator of the universe requires a blood sacrifice to atone for sin, so that to me is a delusion.

What would you think of people that derived comfort in the belief in Batman being real, and tried to get others to believe in Batman?

What "some people" believe is not the litmus test as to what other people who believe in a God believe. You achieve nothing by grouping, tagging and tarring huge populations of humanity with the same brush as those "some" who have a particular type of belief in God that includes harm to themselves or harm to others. Blood sacrifice in Abramaic religions is something found in the early history of humanity, not something that is a prevalent or popular belief being practiced today.

Your reasoning escapes me on this one.

It's a nonsense to debate the existence of Batman in the same breath as debating the existence of God

Edited by libstaK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes it does. I am a resounding 1 on the scale and proud of it. There is a God. A truly wonderful, merciful, gracious God who wants you to feel His love. He is your Heavenly Father who wants a relationship with you, all you have to do is accept. A lack of belief in Him is directly proportional to the destruction in your life and/or the destruction you do to others around you. You are more and more destructive as you fall farther and farther away from God.

Whatever happened to judge not?

So I'm wrong and destructive because I don't believe the same thing you do? That makes sense...

I'm just gonna go ahead and place myself at a 7.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.