Doing God's will.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Calvin? Some things are universal.

Calvin was the only Protestant reformer who didn't hate Jews. That in itself says something. 

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Can you honestly say what you fear so much about real challenges to gods existence? 

 

I see the greatest challenge to God's existence (the fact that he exists) is not ending up hating myself when it becomes more than obvious that once again, I failed to do his will.

That's why I ask a lot of questions. 

I don't like to hate myself.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Will Due

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I see the greatest challenge to God's existence (the fact that he exists) is not ending up hating myself when it becomes more than obvious that once again, I failed to do his will.

That's just a personal paranoid view based on fear. I don't see any value in that approach. You want to believe god exists, so you do, and lay yourself at the mercy of your own imagination because you need an authority figure to look up to. 

That's just 11th century thinking Will. 

 

[GoldenWolf]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I see the greatest challenge to God's existence (the fact that he exists) is not ending up hating myself when it becomes more than obvious that once again, I failed to do his will.

That's why I ask a lot of questions. 

I don't like to hate myself.

 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's just a personal paranoid view based on fear.

 

You're not talkin about hating belief in God are you?

 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

 

 

I like it much better when you speak for yourself.

 

 

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

You're not talkin about hating belief in God are you?

No, I'm pointing out that it's made up. Imagination. A pointless concept that distracts real learning. I can only imagine what an intellectual giant you might be if you put the effort that you put into superstition into real learning. 

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, I'm pointing out that it's made up. 

 

Made up? Like the modern version of superstition to believe that God doesn't exist because somebody wrote it in a periodic table?

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Will Due

[Aquila King]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I understand that. I honestly think you're being overly defensive here. Believers get defensive too for that same reason. They don't know, but the difference I assume there is that they don't want to know, where you can't be bothered. 

Well there isn't really any response that I can think of to the assertion that I'm "being defensive" that doesn't make it appear as though I actually am being defensive, so I guess this is all I'll say to that. 

Though I will say to the bolded part above: 

I've spent many many many years of my life searching for answers to these great questions, so don't think that I "can't be bothered with finding out" or whatever. I wouldn't have devoted such a huge chunk of my life if I didn't originally care.

All I'm saying is that I've eventually come to the conclusion that questioning it is a waste of my time, and I'd personally be better off devoting my time and efforts into other things that I view to affect people's lives in more direct ways.

My apathy towards the big God question comes more from personal exhausted efforts that I deem futile, rather than a general lack of inquiry in the first place.

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

This is what I was telling Hab yesterday. Learning is easier than ever. Thanks to great books by brilliant peolie (Hawking, Greene, Krauss, Carroll etc) it's not as hard to grasp as it one was. And that's not to say people should educate themselves, ignorance is a choice too, and it can be taxing to learn. You don't have to take such things on faith when these brilliant minds go to such great lengths to lay them out for us. 

You act as if those people are the only scientific authorities on the matter, while in reality they're merely the scientific community mainstream consensus - which has been historically wrong numerous times before.

Say what you will about alternative viewpoints in the scientific field - call them pseudoscientists or whatever else, but the fact is they exist. And in many cases they have just as much accreditation and degrees as the big wigs in the mainstream, and their theories contradict those people you listed..

Again, you can disagree with them, but the fact that they exist and that their theories contradict the people you laid out there means that the mainstream scientists are not all-knowing demigods with perfect authority who've blessed us lowly peons with the gift of knowledge.

I know you take offense to this and I assure you that isn't my intent, but this is exactly what I mean when I say your atheism comes off (to me at least) as being just as fundamentalist as many religious people.

P.S. - btw, I actually have read most of the works of the people you listed above in the past also, so you haven't presented to me anything new.

20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It's fine that you don't want to know, but you also shouldn't believe ' that nobody does.

I never said nobody does, I just said that I don't. And that I've experienced the feeling of absolute confidence that I do know multiple times from multiple positions, so you should at least be humbled enough to realize your confidence in what you believe to be true alone does not therefore make it true.

In essence I'm speaking more to the general attitude you exude, not the position you hold itself.

39 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm confident in results and gathered knowledge. I'm not sure why you see a problem with that. It's proven information. 

I don't have a problem with "results and gathered knowledge."

What I have a problem with is believing on faith that something I don't personally know anything about or understand is true, because smart guy X told me so. These things have yet to be proven to me personally at least, and after all that's all anyone can ever go on. 

Since the question of whether some sort of God exists or not has no bearing on my everyday lifestyle, I don't waste my time anymore with trying to discover the answer to it. If it were something however that does effect me like climate science or healthcare, etc. then perhaps I would devote more time to researching it and trying to understand it all. But God doesn't matter in the slightest. It's as simple as that.

50 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not selling you anything  did I appear as if I was coercing you to change views? I simply stated that I have reason to be confident in gathered data that offers repeatability upon demand and can predict outcomes. I have no reason to want you to think the same way. In fact, in a little dissappionted that you would think Im selling anything. 

Let's be honest with ourselves, okay?

What you're saying here is just a fancy way of saying: "I'm right, anyone who disagrees is wrong, because I'm stating objective facts - and if you disagree with me, you disagree with objective reality."

It's kind of hard to say that without at least to some degree insinuating that the person reading this should at least to some degree change their views to align with yours.

58 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Quite frankly, I'm too ambitious and interested to have the complacent approach that you do, but rest assured I don't begrudge you of your stance either.

I know I essentially addressed this point earlier by stating how my stance comes from a history of seeking the answers, not mere "complacency."

However I just wanted to point out how the way you worded this one was rather insulting. Whether you're consciously aware of it or not.

Now I know one's attitude has nothing to do with whether or not they're factually correct, but it is worth taking note that the way you're presenting your case here all throughout seems quite condescending, abrasive, and in some cases downright rude. And no amount of this...

Quote

I'm not certain anything I think is correct. That's why I go with data and knowledge gathered by people far smarter than I am. I defer to greater minds. All I can do is try my best to understand them. I can indeed be dead ass wrong. But math and data are not. 

...can negate that fact. 

I know I'm definately more of the "tell it as it is" type myself, and can be rather abrasive at times as well. But I at least try not to sound like a pious know-it-all. Which they way you're presenting your case here, unfortunately kinda gives off that impression a little. There are FAR worse posters here when it comes to that sorta thing by a mile and a half - but still. Just stating my impressions here.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I just think if someone makes a claim, they should support it. I don't see anything wrong with that do you? 

I absolutely 100% agree with you there. I'm not arguing in favor of baseless claims. I'm simply stating my own ignorance and overall apathy to the question of God's potential existence. That's all.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Well there isn't really any response that I can think of to the assertion that I'm "being defensive" that doesn't make it appear as though I actually am being defensive, so I guess this is all I'll say to that. 

I don't feel you have approached the discussion from a completely unbiased view I'm sorry to say. I do get the impression that you feel your approach is the only correct one. 

Quote

Though I will say to the bolded part above: 

I've spent many many many years of my life searching for answers to these great questions, so don't think that I "can't be bothered with finding out" or whatever. I wouldn't have devoted such a huge chunk of my life if I didn't originally care.

With all due respect, if you wanted to 'know' you wouldn't have given up on following the cutting edge. I used to be a very adaept hacker, I haven't touched hacking in years, so I would be way behind the 8 ball now. 

Quote

All I'm saying is that I've eventually come to the conclusion that questioning it is a waste of my time, and I'd personally be better off devoting my time and efforts into other things that I view to affect people's lives in more direct ways.

My apathy towards the big God question comes more from personal exhausted efforts that I deem futile, rather than a general lack of inquiry in the first place.

And I don't begrudge that, but I do begrudge opinions which challenge scientific opinion without basis. You haven't provided a basis. If you find other things more pressing in life that's good, but no need to tread on us who make the effort to understand. 

Quote

You act as if those people are the only scientific authorities on the matter, while in reality they're merely the scientific community mainstream consensus - which has been historically wrong numerous times before.

Are you really saying the basics like atom theory are going to be proven incorrect? Do you have any idea of the impact of such an offhanded comment? That means everything we know would be wrong. Do you really think that is likely? Especially considering how extensive the usage of what we know comprises? 

Quote

Say what you will about alternative viewpoints in the scientific field - call them pseudoscientists or whatever else, but the fact is they exist. And in many cases they have just as much accreditation and degrees as the big wigs in the mainstream, and their theories contradict those people you listed..

Again, you can disagree with them, but the fact that they exist and that their theories contradict the people you laid out there means that the mainstream scientists are not all-knowing demigods with perfect authority who've blessed us lowly peons with the gift of knowledge.

They are not demi gods, they support what they offer. That's the rub here. If psuedo scientists could support their claims, they would not be making psuedo science claims, they would be presenting facts. There is nobody to blame but their own personal failings. You can believe they have other answers, but I go with those who can stand by what they say. 

Quote

I know you take offense to this and I assure you that isn't my intent, but this is exactly what I mean when I say your atheism comes off (to me at least) as being just as fundamentalist as many religious people.

I take offence at you calling basic knowledge fundamentalist. Yes, there are fundamental factors that won't change, like the aforementioned atomic theories. Do you consider the best minds in the world like Sean Carroll who outright state things like physics disproves the afterlife fundamentalist? 

And what is not fundamentalist about undermining strides in knowledge with ancient superstitions that are only seen in the writings of man, nowhere in nature? 

Quote

P.S. - btw, I actually have read most of the works of the people you listed above in the past also, so you haven't presented to me anything new.

If you have, and comprehended them, why are you not atheist then? 

Its not like there's a grey area. There's a reason that there are no university lectures discussing gods hand in creation. 

Sean Carroll gives a good comprehensive presentation on how physics refutes the afterlife. Can you fault his information? I'd be rather fascinated if you can. 

Quote

I never said nobody does, I just said that I don't.

But you are saying if one doesn't adopt an agnostic position, any confidence is seen as fundamentalist and arrogant?

Do you feel confident making that statement for the great minds? I sure wouldn't. 

But what ideas support the god myth? Does anything outside of the minds of men indicate that a god even might exist? Because as far as I know, that's a big no. The only authorities on God are those making stuff up, not finding, observing or measuring. 

And why begrudge those who made the effort? You seem to be assuming your path and result would be the same for all? 

Quote

And that I've experienced the feeling of absolute confidence that I do know multiple times from multiple positions, so you should at least be humbled enough to realize your confidence in what you believe to be true alone does not therefore make it true.

But I keep saying. Its not about belief. It's about what is supported. Not my thoughts, the findings of the smartest people on the planet who are standing on the shoulders of giants. I am hombled by their dedication, brilliance and sharing nature. They are helping dumb people like me learn interesting things. That act humbles me as do their findings. 

Quote

In essence I'm speaking more to the general attitude you exude, not the position you hold itself.

Well to be honest, your giving me the same impression when you say the smartest men in the planet who have dedicated an entire life to knowledge just might be upturned by some unsupported psuedo science. On what basis can you make that claim? 

Quote

I don't have a problem with "results and gathered knowledge."

With all due respect, your comments indicate otherwise. Accepting an afterlife or God means totally rewriting everything we know based on no evidence whatsoever. Is that not the pinnacle of arrogance? 

Quote

What I have a problem with is believing on faith that something I don't personally know anything about or understand is true, because smart guy X told me so. These things have yet to be proven to me personally at least, and after all that's all anyone can ever go on. 

You don't need faith with science. You just have to dedicate yourself if you want to know though. One has to believe on faith that things which are predicted and can be repeated upon demand are wrong. There's just no good reason to do so. 

Quote

Since the question of whether some sort of God exists or not has no bearing on my everyday lifestyle, I don't waste my time anymore with trying to discover the answer to it.

Then why be so disparaging of those who did flow through and find a real world answer? 

Quote

If it were something however that does effect me like climate science or healthcare, etc. then perhaps I would devote more time to researching it and trying to understand it all. But God doesn't matter in the slightest. It's as simple as that.

We're you indoctrinated and do you have children? I think both those factors motivate me to keep searching where you stopped. 

Quote

Let's be honest with ourselves, okay?

What you're saying here is just a fancy way of saying: "I'm right, anyone who disagrees is wrong, because I'm stating objective facts - and if you disagree with me, you disagree with objective reality."

It's kind of hard to say that without at least to some degree insinuating that the person reading this should at least to some degree change their views to align with yours.

I know I essentially addressed this point earlier by stating how my stance comes from a history of seeking the answers, not mere "complacency."

However I just wanted to point out how the way you worded this one was rather insulting. Whether you're consciously aware of it or not.

Now I know one's attitude has nothing to do with whether or not they're factually correct, but it is worth taking note that the way you're presenting your case here all throughout seems quite condescending, abrasive, and in some cases downright rude. And no amount of this...

...can negate that fact. 

Do you honestly feel your approach is different? You're being condescending by stating that because you decided you don't know, then nobody possibly can, and anyone who took the time and effort to seek further is immediately considered insulting and condescending? Would it not be more prudent to discuss what the person is referring to exa tly before telling them they don't know what they know? 

No, I'm not at all saying you have to agree, I'm saying things are what they are. And there are plenty of factual aspects that refute afterlife and God ideas. Of you don't agree with that, I not the on to take it up with. Science is. 

Quote

I know I'm definately more of the "tell it as it is" type myself, and can be rather abrasive at times as well. But I at least try not to sound like a pious know-it-all. Which they way you're presenting your case here, unfortunately kinda gives off that impression a little. There are FAR worse posters here when it comes to that sorta thing by a mile and a half - but still. Just stating my impressions here.

As I say, I honestly think your impression is what you are displaying. I rather enjoyed posts and have got along with you well untill this discussion. 

Quote

I absolutely 100% agree with you there. I'm not arguing in favor of baseless claims. I'm simply stating my own ignorance and overall apathy to the question of God's potential existence. That's all.

Well, no your not. Your telling me I should adopt your approach and say I know nothing otherwise I'm arrogant and pompous. If you wish to remain ignorant of the sciences that rule out gods, the afterlife and other superstitions that's fine, but you shouldn't look down your nose at people who wish to take the subject further, and have. I honestly can't imagine how you can remain on the fence if you really have read the books by Hawking, Greens, Krauss Carroll and Dawkins. It's not like there's wiggle room for god or superstition. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by psyche101

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Made up? Like the modern version of superstition to believe that God doesn't exist because somebody wrote it in a periodic table?

You really are out of your depth here aren't you Will. 

No made up like God actually is made up by humans.

The periodic table is valid. Man's imagination, and yours for that matter, is not. 

Do you know what the periodic table even represents Will? 

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I rather enjoyed posts and have got along with you well untill this discussion. 

Sadly I could generally speaking say the same. 

Since as I've stated numerous times, I really don't care about the topic at hand either way, I'll just address a few points and be on my merry way.

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your telling me I should adopt your approach and say I know nothing otherwise I'm arrogant and pompous.

1) I never said you need to adopt my approach. I merely stated how I shared the same near certainty with past positions I held on the topic, and therefore your certainty you have on your current position does not mean that you're correct.

That wasn't me trying to 'convert' you or anything, that's merely me sharing some personal experience with you. You were free to take from it whatever you willed.

2) I never once said that you were arrogant and pompous for your position. I've personally known plenty an incredibly humble atheist. What I said was that the way in which you present your case here comes off as incredibly arrogant, immature, and like you're a know-it-all.

You're presenting your position and every one of your beliefs as rock solid scientifically and definitively proven objective facts, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply uneducated intellectually lazy idiots who oppose science, and you're here simply to educate and inform the ignorant masses. Anyone who even slightly suggests the mere possibility of anything outside of your worldview has fallen victim to cruel fate of superstition, and you must therefore smite their ignorance with the power of science and reason.

And sadly, the above paragraph really isn't that much of an exaggeration.  You apparently really believe that nonsense, which makes it virtually impossible to discuss anything of substance with you. 

I started this conversation in a light hearted friendly tone, merely expressing my agnosticism in relation to your atheism, and I even mentioned how I tend to agree with atheists like yourself more than believers and whatnot. Yet apparently that just isn't enough for you. I'm just another ignorant uneducated peon in your eyes that needs to be 'enlightened'. 

If that's the kind of attitude you wanna have then have at it hoss. I want no part of it. You're the exact kind of atheist that many of my other atheist friends despised, because it simply perpetuated the negative stereotype of atheists in general having an uppity know-it-all bad attitude...

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Sadly I could generally speaking say the same. 

Since as I've stated numerous times, I really don't care about the topic at hand either way, I'll just address a few points and be on my merry way.

I'm really disappointed myself. I honestly underestimated you. And you obviously care to make such a big deal over well founded confidence in facts. 

Not like you refuted anything is it. You just decided to get personal. I think that says a lot right there myself. 

Quote

1) I never said you need to adopt my approach. I merely stated how I shared the same near certainty with past positions I held on the topic, and therefore your certainty you have on your current position does not mean that you're correct.

And tell me what that is supposed to mean if not to adopt your own position or be considered arrogant in my approach? 

You said you struggle academically and couldn't see how the sciences work together to a conclusion so you would have to take their word on faith. So why does that apply to everyone? How is that not saying, 'I didn't get it, how dare you do so'? 

It means the position I hold on the subject is supported. If that changes then I'm happy to change with it. If you've got anything real to challenge the information I refer to, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. How much confidence can you really have in it if you don't present it in argument against the points I have presented? If you really had good reason to be so sure that being confident in my view is flawed, why not discuss how that information falls short instead of getting personal? 

Quote

That wasn't me trying to 'convert' you or anything, that's merely me sharing some personal experience with you. You were free to take from it whatever you willed.

I really get the impression that if somone has confidence in anything, you oppose that. You seem to be insisting that argument from ignorance trumps all. I don't agree. 

Quote

2) I never once said that you were arrogant and pompous for your position. I've personally known plenty an incredibly humble atheist. What I said was that the way in which you present your case here comes off as incredibly arrogant, immature, and like you're a know-it-all.

Saying I'm posting arrogantly is saying I am arrogant. Don't pee in my pocket. Man up. 

I'm arrogant because I refer to some of the best known and most accomplished people in their respective fields? How am I a know it all when I don't come up with the brilliant discoveries I duly credit those who made them? 

How is it not 'know it all' of you to say those men can be wrong and then cite fringe work? You really think wild unsupported claims are worthy of undermining the years of dedication and hard work the collective pushes is forward with? How is saying fringe scientists challenges real science any better than saying vaccinations cause autism? 

Quote

You're presenting your position and every one of your beliefs as rock solid scientifically and definitively proven objective facts,

They are facts, not beliefs and I invite you to illustrate otherwise. That's why this is called a discussion forum. What is not observed fact is well supported by subjective evidence. Please feel free to illustrate otherwise. 

Quote

and anyone who disagrees with you is simply uneducated intellectually lazy idiots who oppose science, and you're here simply to educate and inform the ignorant masses. Anyone who even slightly suggests the mere possibility of anything outside of your worldview has fallen victim to cruel fate of superstition, and you must therefore smite their ignorance with the power of science and reason.

How do you feel I applied that to you? At what point do you feel I was coercing you to be educated by me? 

Dan runs rings around me education wise, yet has his own belief system. I don't understand how he maintains it (same with Simon Conway Morris for that matter) and have asked to no avail. Yet do you really think I would consider such an accomplished man an idiot? If so, you really don't understand where I am coming from at all. I admire these people a great deal. 

What makes you think I want people to blindly accept anything at all, when I go to great lengths to point at the real world information supporting my statements? They are there to support my statements and invite discussions. Why don't people like yourself who seem to feel inadequate when presented with such hard facts discuss the facts and how they do or don't apply? That's how discussion works isn't it? What have you suggested other than shut your mouth, we don't want to know if facts refute claims? 

Quote

And sadly, the above paragraph really isn't that much of an exaggeration.  You apparently really believe that nonsense, which makes it virtually impossible to discuss anything of substance with you. 

You wouldn't know. You haven't tried. You jumped into a conversation obviously under a guise to chastise an atheist. And that's alright, it's not like we aren't used to it. 

You should attempt discussing the subject with other people rather than dismiss it based on past experiences. Isn't it possible that there have been developments or discoveries that might fill the holes you found in your personal quest? 

Quote

I started this conversation in a light hearted friendly tone, merely expressing my agnosticism in relation to your atheism, and I even mentioned how I tend to agree with atheists like yourself more than believers and whatnot. Yet apparently that just isn't enough for you. I'm just another ignorant uneducated peon in your eyes that needs to be 'enlightened'. 

What gives you that impression? I was more than happy to leave you with your apetheism. If that's your choice more power to you. Xeno is, if he ever returns you can ask him how often I tried to sway him. This is a discussion forum  why is it out of place to present what forms and supports my statements? Is expressing my understanding somehow forcing you to collude is it? 

And you are here telling me, been there, done that. You will fail because I did, so give up and be agnostic? If your not agnostic you come off as an arrogant know it all? 

Really? 

Quote

If that's the kind of attitude you wanna have then have at it hoss.

I have to return the sentiment. 

Quote

I want no part of it.

And again. 

Quote

You're the exact kind of atheist that many of my other atheist friends despised, because it simply perpetuated the negative stereotype of atheists in general having an uppity know-it-all bad attitude...

And your the kind of person who doesn't seem to appreciate those who dedicate themselves to learning more, be it a dummy like me, or the great scientists whose work is undermined by the fringe con men you seem to support. 

And I have to say, you don't give spiritual people a good look either. You are passive aggressively supporting your own position as if its one all should adopt. Like you're annoyed that someone found something that you didn't. 

Posters like DieChecker do offer a respectable view of faith. It's not the people if you had cared to venture further, although we do get rather 'special' individuals like Will. it's the religion itself and how it spreads and is validated in conditions that nothing else would be considered as acceptable. If you have a valid argument to consider religious ideals in the face of modern knowledge I'm all ears. In fact I'd love to hear how others manage to balance faith and science. From what I a tell, science errodes superstitious and religious claims. How do such conflicting point possibly co exist. My understanding is that its often if not always deliberately cherry picking. I don't get how an academic can accept conflicting views without conflict otherwise.

[+joc]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The worst part is they tend to refer to dictatorships as indoctrination which applies to a belief system. New atheism is about the questions that refute God through science. That promotes critical thought which is not indoctrination. Its the very opposite. 

And the questions that are asked are for the most part asked by those who are seeking the truth...because the 'indoctrination' since birth they have undergone just isn't making sense anymore!

[SHaYap]

What is needed here is an aggregation of a small Bastion of Bliss ..

~

[+joc]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not certain anything I think is correct. That's why I go with data and knowledge gathered by people far smarter than I am. I defer to greater minds. All I can do is try my best to understand them. I can indeed be dead ass wrong. But math and data are not. 

I am saying that what I know is correct!  And I don't mind saying it.  We do have data and knowledge that are undeniably factual.  The thing is...all of that data...all of that knowledge just supports the answers to the questions I have thought about for decades...and finally answered truthfully.

It's not that I 'believe' that the myth is a myth.  Logic and Data together solidify it in my head.  Like I know that no person on Earth can levitate a quarter with their mind.  It's not something science strongly suggests...it is an impossible feat and science backs that up.  But I never read that in a book.  That came straight out of my head because I do indeed KNOW certain things.  Knowing that the Bible and the Koran and all the rest of the Deity Fabrications of the human mind are myth,  is not 'believing' they are myth.  It is accepting as fact...the fact that they are.  

Believing that you know...is when the preacher asked the stupid question...Do you know that you know that you know that Jesus is real?

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by joc

[+joc]

20 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What is needed here is an aggregation of a small Bastion of Bliss ..

~

[Wes83]

Similar to this thread and all conversations, there has to be shades of view to make the conversation worth having.

perhaps the creator could have created a “good god” and an “evil god”, however these gods would not be the true creators. A supposed good god could only create good and vice versa. The creator is limitless, creating both light and shade, necessarily for either to exist.

if you choose to serve the good or evil god, you choose the lesser. The creator is not limited to such polarized concepts.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, joc said:

I am saying that what I know is correct!  And I don't mind saying it.  We do have data and knowledge that are undeniably factual.  The thing is...all of that data...all of that knowledge just supports the answers to the questions I have thought about for decades...and finally answered truthfully.

It's not that I 'believe' that the myth is a myth.  Logic and Data together solidify it in my head.  Like I know that no person on Earth can levitate a quarter with their mind.  It's not something science strongly suggests...it is an impossible feat and science backs that up.  But I never read that in a book.  That came straight out of my head because I do indeed KNOW certain things.  Knowing that the Bible and the Koran and all the rest of the Deity Fabrications of the human mind are myth,  is not 'believing' they are myth.  It is accepting as fact...the fact that they are.  

Thank you my friend.

Its amazing. I find the people who claim to be open minded are actually very closed minded and guard that ideology well. I've noticed that few, indeed if any, are happy to insist the non material is perfectly valid, but shy away from the the arguments that refute that. 

And so many seem to think personal evaluation of unusual things is beyond reproach. I just don't get that. And then they have the audacity to label others as arrogant!! 

11 hours ago, joc said:

Believing that you know...is when the preacher asked the stupid question...Do you know that you know that you know that Jesus is real?

That's just like something Will would say when he preaches here. 

How can that philosophy culminate into anything other than self delusion? I can't wrap my head around where others see validity in that concept. 

From within? A big night on the drinks and what comes from within is not very pleasant!! 

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Have Kaplan and that image of Jesus are not incredibly good looking. 

I'd say you have tickets on yourself that you can't cash in. 

Well I have said before that one difference was my better looks, although I think both images are of  good looking blokes.

If the tickets are on myself then I can cash them in, myself, any time I like  

With age I rely less on my incredibly good looks and physique, and more on my incredible charm.  

Whatever it is, it works a treat. 

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well I have said before that one difference was my better looks, although I think both images are of  good looking blokes.

If the tickets are on myself then I can cash them in, myself, any time I like  

With age I rely less on my incredibly good looks and physique, and more on my incredible charm.  

Whatever it is, it works a treat. 

LOL I never saw Gabe Kaplan as an adonis that women fall over to meet, and that photo of Jesus looks more like he would appeal to the male group his father hates so much. Lol. 

I would say blokes like the Rock would be more deserving of the descriptions you give. I just can't see your stories of being inundated with female proposals to be anything but greatly exaggerated if you cite those 2 guys as examples. But hey  I'm a straight male. What do I know. 

[Mr Walker]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Not as I understand it. The atheist arguments I have proposed that refute superstitions and religions are based on facts that only have any real impact if understood. That's the very opposite of indoctrination. One has to learn and comprehend the sciences to understand why the God idea is so heavily flawed and extremely unlikely. If I just say 'well science' as an uncritical ideology (the flip side of the coin of God did it) that would be indoctrination (if I expect that line as the be all end all of the discussion) however explaining the finer points of why superstition and god ideas are not viable with real world information to be challenged, I can't see as working with the definition of indoctrination. Quite a few understand the sciences that remove the need for beliefs at all, yet still maintain such irrational beliefs. That's why it's not indoctrination the way I see it. 

Some say the likes of Stalin used atheist indoctrination. That is just a limited poor understanding of Stalanism though. 

Atheism is a default state. We have to build mental constructs to reject that natural state. 

Well at least SOME athiests argue that gods do not exist and do not allow  for critical thinking which might create an alternative position or view. 

Critical thinking by individuals never leads them all to one fixed conclusion, and nor does pure logic 

The definition of indoctrination includes NON critical thinking. To my mind this is rare, and perhaps even non existent. Human minds, by nature, think and consider and evaluate  and ponder.  So, no matter what a person is taught, their mind will construct other possibilities

Learning  the sciences is no elixir of disbelief..

it might tend a person to disbelieve in creationism, but not in god. People believe in gods to meet human needs, and a scientist will recognise this  ie it is belief which is critical, not whether the entity believed in actually has its own existence 

Atheism is not a default state because atheism is NOT a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is a positive disbelief in the existence of gods.

Rocks are not atheists, dogs are not atheists. One only becomes an atheist when one chooses to disbelieve In gods. Belief is the first cognitive construct of an infant, and disbelief only comes much later. 

[Mr Walker]

23 hours ago, Aquila King said:

It's odd how religious folks are outraged over "atheist indoctrination" yet equally outraged over not indoctrinating people into their specific religion... 

Apart from this forum I've never met a person outraged by either.

I  do get annoyed at people who argue that children should simply evolve their own values moralities, ethics and beliefs, rather than have them passed down by wiser, older , experienced adults 

"Lord of the flies" and "Coral Island"  epitomise the two sides of this debate showing how boys the same age can act in very difernt ways, with very different skills and moralities, depending on how the y were raised 

In reality the atheist and the theist will; logically, naturally, and correctly, educate their chldren in whatever world view has worked for them, NOT introduce them to a world view which the y see as either destructive, or less constructive than their own.  

[Mr Walker]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The worst part is they tend to refer to dictatorships as indoctrination which applies to a belief system. New atheism is about the questions that refute God through science. That promotes critical thought which is not indoctrination. Its the very opposite. 

And when a scientist's critical thinking leads him or her to a belief in god ? What then? 

You assume that, because you believe your belief is true, then anyone who thinks critically, logically, and rationally, will inevitably come to the same belief that you hold 

Science simply does NOT refute the existence of gods That is just how you understand science, and uses a very restricted idea of what a god is.  

[Mr Walker]

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That would indicate what I suspected. You don't know what it is do you. 

What examples can you copy and paste for me Will? You know, to prove you're not lying. 

You tell us all constantly tha t  you know that god does not exist and that science proves this to be true 

That is trying to enforce an uncritical personal  belief, and thus, by your definition, is indoctrination ( i don't find it so, but then you think my definition of indoctrination is wrong )  ,