A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[BreezeWood]

.
howabout defending the christian religion's history of persecution and victimization of the innocent - your false 4th century political document disguised as a religion.

instead of hiding behind the skirt of the Almighty. and pathological liars.

Religion does not persecute. People do that. Persecution happens because people aren't particularly nice. It was going on before Christianity and it will continue to go on after Christianity.

.

Religion does not persecute. People do that. Persecution happens because people aren't particularly nice. It was going on before Christianity and it will continue to go on after Christianity.

think again on the first ... your reactionary rhetoric is nothing new.

the difference being christians are conducting themselves surreptitiously by portraying themselves as representing the events of the 1st century and the religion of antiquity they in fact abandoned to write a revisionist accounting as a political persuasion disguised as a religion, the 4th century christian bible ...

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

.

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

you have that in a nut shell -

absolutely, that is a 4th century adaptation with out accreditation ... as not being the subject matter of the 1st century events.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

As near as I can tell, you are the one persecuting others. Not me.

.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

you are a joke bing ...

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

you set the table with your 4th century religion and have been ridding the wave ever since. the irony is your sinning being the betterment of yourselves and the consequential demise implicit for all humanity.

 

[ding]

Religion does not persecute. People do that. Persecution happens because people aren't particularly nice. It was going on before Christianity and it will continue to go on after Christianity.

.

Religion does not persecute. People do that. Persecution happens because people aren't particularly nice. It was going on before Christianity and it will continue to go on after Christianity.

think again on the first ... your reactionary rhetoric is nothing new.

the difference being christians are conducting themselves surreptitiously by portraying themselves as representing the events of the 1st century and the religion of antiquity they in fact abandoned to write a revisionist accounting as a political persuasion disguised as a religion, the 4th century christian bible ...

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

.

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

you have that in a nut shell -

absolutely, that is a 4th century adaptation with out accreditation ... as not being the subject matter of the 1st century events.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

As near as I can tell, you are the one persecuting others. Not me.

.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

you are a joke bing ...

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

View attachment 269520

you set the table with your 4th century religion and have been ridding the wave ever since. the irony is your sinning being the betterment of yourselves and the consequential demise implicit for all humanity.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

 

[diver52]

Nothing has changed except the technology to make us more effective killers.

Utter nonsense. Scientific enlightenment,for instance, has brought us the tools to form better morals and ethics. Bad ideas like slavery are displaced by better ideas, thanks to secular reform due to ideas like classical liberalism.

You think slavery doesn't currently exist? You need to pay more attention to the news.

 

[diver52]

I have already said there are individuals, just not as a society. For example, what do you think Jesus' position might be as to our nuclear arsenal and all that it implies?

What political position did Jesus take in his own day? That's right, he did not have one. His focus was entirely on how the individual could improve the relationships s/he had with his/her fellowman and with God. He did not urge a single person to take up a political position. He simply asked everyone to focus on bringing the kingdom of God into his/her own life, because that is what is within everyone's reach.

That was not an answer to my question.

 

[diver52]

That is why God isn't relevant. If love does not come from within you, you do not have it.

Which organ should that love come from? The liver, the gall bladder, the lungs? Aren't they all nourished by physical means?

Love comes from the inner spirit, and it is God who is Spirit who nourishes our spirits.

I would say the brain. But wherever it comes from, it either comes from within or you do not have it.

 

[diver52]

It seems even people who agree there is a God can't agree on what that even means. There lies the problem with trying to point to things around us and just calling it proof. We can't even say what it is it is proof of.

The same can be said of love.

I agree.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
think again on the first ... your reactionary rhetoric is nothing new.

the difference being christians are conducting themselves surreptitiously by portraying themselves as representing the events of the 1st century and the religion of antiquity they in fact abandoned to write a revisionist accounting as a political persuasion disguised as a religion, the 4th century christian bible ...

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

.

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

you have that in a nut shell -

absolutely, that is a 4th century adaptation with out accreditation ... as not being the subject matter of the 1st century events.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

As near as I can tell, you are the one persecuting others. Not me.

.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

you are a joke bing ...

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

View attachment 269520

you set the table with your 4th century religion and have been ridding the wave ever since. the irony is your sinning being the betterment of yourselves and the consequential demise implicit for all humanity.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

you sound like someone who makes no sense, the religion of antiquity is only 6 words long - your forgery document has 10,000 pages, you like the pathological liar make it into anything pleasing to yourselves as was the motive when it was written.

 

[Meriweather]

That was not an answer to my question.

Yes. It was.

 

[BreezeWood]

What political position did Jesus take in his own day? That's right, he did not have one.

the roman empire would differ with your appraisal ...

of course you belong to their religion, written 4 centuries latter. oh, sorry, that must be the reason for your response. on the many subjects that required reprimand.

 

[ding]

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

.

You mean representing themselves as sinners? Yep. Guilty as charged.

you have that in a nut shell -

absolutely, that is a 4th century adaptation with out accreditation ... as not being the subject matter of the 1st century events.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

As near as I can tell, you are the one persecuting others. Not me.

.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

you are a joke bing ...

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

View attachment 269520

you set the table with your 4th century religion and have been ridding the wave ever since. the irony is your sinning being the betterment of yourselves and the consequential demise implicit for all humanity.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

you sound like someone who makes no sense, the religion of antiquity is only 6 words long - your forgery document has 10,000 pages, you like the pathological liar make it into anything pleasing to yourselves as was the motive when it was written.

Still persecuting I see.

 

[Meriweather]

Still persecuting I see.

If by any chance you are referencing the above post, I seldom, if ever, read anything he posts, so any 'persecution' misses by a couple of solar systems.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
you have that in a nut shell -

absolutely, that is a 4th century adaptation with out accreditation ... as not being the subject matter of the 1st century events.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

As near as I can tell, you are the one persecuting others. Not me.

.

Beats pointing fingers at others unjustly.

you are a joke bing ...

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

View attachment 269520

you set the table with your 4th century religion and have been ridding the wave ever since. the irony is your sinning being the betterment of yourselves and the consequential demise implicit for all humanity.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

.

That sounds very much like what someone who was persecuting someone else would say.

you sound like someone who makes no sense, the religion of antiquity is only 6 words long - your forgery document has 10,000 pages, you like the pathological liar make it into anything pleasing to yourselves as was the motive when it was written.

Still persecuting I see.

.

Still persecuting I see.

the history of christianity, their false religion to the present day -

without remorse and perpetuated by intransigent disregard for the truth.

 

[Hollie]

That is why God isn't relevant. If love does not come from within you, you do not have it.

Which organ should that love come from? The liver, the gall bladder, the lungs? Aren't they all nourished by physical means?

Love comes from the inner spirit, and it is God who is Spirit who nourishes our spirits.

I'm afraid that for all the flowery rhetoric about gods and spirit realms, there is no evidence to support those gods and spirit realms. I have a wealth of other reasons why the bibles fail as evidence of either gods or spirit realms, (one of which is no one can show just cause for why a book in anyway supports the assertion of a deity). Atheists / Agnostics use the heinous cruelties of the bibles to point out the amoral nature of a god that is then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed god's example, their would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. The gods in the bibles are capricious, cruel, and as the author of all reality, as evil can be (after all, he created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

 

[Hollie]

It seems even people who agree there is a God can't agree on what that even means. There lies the problem with trying to point to things around us and just calling it proof. We can't even say what it is it is proof of.

The same can be said of love.

Clearly not true.

To answer what love is:

Love is a human emotion, predicated upon nurturing, protection, loyalty, affection, caring (etc.). An emotion is an urge or proclivity based upon chemical changes in the brain that engages the behavior to feel the above. (Test for it: remove or impede the brain's ability to engage these desires, and there is no love extant. Ingest a drug such as Ecstasy which floods the brain with dopamine, and the feelings of love can be overwhelming).

Love can find its root in a hierarchy of animal behaviors where protection of ones mate and offspring is extant. As human beings have sentience, they have labeled these deep seated urges to feel this way as "love". Emotions can be shown to exist in lower creatures; for instance, nurturing and parental caring can be seen in higher apes. As you go lower down the chain, you can see a marked "lessening" of these sorts of caring, until, as you get to simple-brained creatures, they no longer exist. There is nothing to indicate that emotions are not the result of the interactions of chemicals and neurons in the brain.

Describing the attributes and manifestations of a phenomenon, testing for it, falsifying it, and recording its consistency does adequately describe it.

Of course, for those who wish to simply argue, this won't be enough either. Tossing around speculatives is fun and games-- we all share common emotions, we all see their results, and we can even test for them-- but still that's not enough. The irony is this: for these same folks, far less suffices for them to believe in “gods”.


One can:
1. end the emotion of “love” by killing that brain
2. create the emotion of love by chemical inducement of that brain
3. Alter the emotion of love in the brain by removing sections of it.

As far as love is concerned, I have, (don’t know about you), experienced it-- there are physical reasons why we do. The issue of love, as much as we like to romanticize and mystify it-- is quite natural, with natural causes and effects. You might ask, "should you discount my experiences as anecdotal"? Well, to some degree you should because they are anecdotal-- you can assess their veracity and decide if they fit what you know from your perspective as well. And you do that by asking the next statement: Are they unsubstantiated-- are they even corroborate-able (coined a new word)? You can even test for “love” by testing for such things as heart rate and respiration.

How does one test for the “soul”?

And therein lays the huge chasm between citing love as analogous to knowing gods. You actually can corroborate my experiences if you care to-- even if it isn't particularly convenient, it is do-able. You can speak to family members and friends and get their corroboration that I do love them, and you can apply those testimonies to your experiences and decide whether or not they fit your paradigm. And you are free to either embrace them or reject them-- but at least the option to discern it is truly there. If you and I both experience the feelings of love common to people and even to animals-- nurturing, caring, and even grieving over the deaths of off springs and mates-- other animals experience these things too-- and that is substantiating the nature of love.

Not so with your experiences with gods, “souls”, heavens, hells and things that go bump in the night.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm afraid that for all the flowery rhetoric about gods and spirit realms, there is no evidence to support those gods and spirit realms. I have a wealth of other reasons why the bibles fail as evidence of either gods or spirit realms, (one of which is no one can show just cause for why a book in anyway supports the assertion of a deity). Atheists / Agnostics use the heinous cruelties of the bibles to point out the amoral nature of a god that is then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed god's example, their would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. The gods in the bibles are capricious, cruel, and as the author of all reality, as evil can be (after all, he created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

Okay. Go with that.

I'm on another path.

 

[Meriweather]

Not so with your experiences with gods, “souls”, heavens, hells and things that go bump in the night.

Okay.

 

[Hollie]

I'm afraid that for all the flowery rhetoric about gods and spirit realms, there is no evidence to support those gods and spirit realms. I have a wealth of other reasons why the bibles fail as evidence of either gods or spirit realms, (one of which is no one can show just cause for why a book in anyway supports the assertion of a deity). Atheists / Agnostics use the heinous cruelties of the bibles to point out the amoral nature of a god that is then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed god's example, their would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. The gods in the bibles are capricious, cruel, and as the author of all reality, as evil can be (after all, he created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

Okay. Go with that.

I'm on another path.

I’m going with that. Living in a reality of various gods we can use for convenient excuses may be comforting for some but I’d rather accept the reality of responsibility for my actions.

 

[Meriweather]

may be comforting

Comforting?

It is only stimulating and exhilarating for those who can think outside the box (of physical evidence); for those who are fearless and bold enough to explore what is beyond.

 

[Hollie]

may be comforting

Comforting?

It is only stimulating and exhilarating for those who can think outside the box (of physical evidence); for those who are fearless and bold enough to explore what is beyond.

That’s interesting. Do you have non-physical methods to test for out of the box realities?

I’m thinking that I too need to be fearless and bold in my explorations outside the box. I will fearlessly and boldly look beyond physical evidence for “outside the beyond”.

 

[Meriweather]

That’s interesting. Do you have non-physical methods to test for out of the box realities?

I’m thinking that I too need to be fearless and bold in my explorations outside the box. I will fearlessly and boldly look beyond physical evidence for “outside the beyond”.

I wish you well, Hollie. It does not have to be one or the other. It is a big world, and an even larger universe. No one can grasp it all, but it is all fascinating--even those parts we have no time for and therefore must leave to others.