Zone1 I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god

[ding]

Yes..

At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.

 

[Donald H]

Again... I think you concern yourself way too much with what people of faith do or don't do. Maybe a little self reflection is in order.

This isn't a onesided conversation my friend, but it's going to be unless you say something worth my time!

 

[ding]

Atheists aren't all the same but they all have something in common on not believing religion's superstitions. 'I' believe in the natural world and learning is never-ending.

Americans can't criticize any others on destroying. We'll leave it at that!

Correct, all atheists are not the same just as all Christians are not the same. Just as all Americans aren't the same. Or all Canadians aren't the same. People are complex. No one is all good or all bad.

You are a staunch practitioner of critical theory. Don't make the mistake of confusing this for critical thinking because it is literally the antithesis of critical thinking.

For a guy who purports to believe in the natural world and learning is never ending, you sure don't act like it. You act like a cultural Marxist who demands everyone be the same and think the same.

 

[Donald H]

At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.

No. For example you might be walking down the street in America and be hit by a stray bullet.

 

[ding]

This isn't a onesided conversation my friend, but it's going to be unless you say something worth my time!

Couldn't care less what you choose to do, brother.

 

[ding]

No. For example you might be walking down the street in America and be hit by a stray bullet.

And yet even though you would like to believe that is random, the laws of physics say it wasn't. It's just velocity, directions, distance and gravity.

 

[Donald H]

Correct, all atheists are not the same just as all Christians are not the same. Just as all Americans aren't the same. Or all Canadians aren't the same. People are complex. No one is all good or all bad.

Are you into your cups?

You are a staunch practitioner of critical theory. Don't make the mistake of confusing this for critical thinking because it is literally the antithesis of critical thinking.

We have to disagree on that.

For a guy who purports to believe in the natural world and learning is never ending, you sure don't act like it. You act like a cultural Marxist who demands everyone be the same and think the same.

I've asked you over and over again to reconcile man being created and evolving according to Darwin, at the same time. Is that what has angered you? Are you ashamed?

Does that call for trying to insult me?

 

[Donald H]

And yet even though you would like to believe that is random, the laws of physics say it wasn't. It's just velocity, directions, distance and gravity.

You're into your cups. Good night.

 

[ding]

Are you into your cups?

No idea what you are referring to.

 

[ding]

We have to disagree on that.

I don't blame you for disagreeing. It's not a good look. But alas that is exactly what you do and don't even know you do it.

 

[ding]

I've asked you over and over again to reconcile man being created and evolving according to Darwin, at the same time. Is that what has angered you? Are you ashamed?

Does that call for trying to insult me?

I'm pretty sure I have addressed this before but....

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is anything which moves from a lower state to a higher state; a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

Does that answer your question? And BTW... this is an example of explaining what something is as opposed to criticizing it. I create. You tear down because you do not possess the intellectual capacity to explain what something is. Primarily because atheism does not require any intellect whatsoever.

 

[ding]

Is that what has angered you? Are you ashamed?

Does that call for trying to insult me?

I'm not angry and I'm not insulting you. I am making statements of fact based upon observations of your behavior.

 

[ding]

You're into your cups. Good night.

I still have no idea what that is but this is a perfect example of your inability to see reality which is a sign of your lack of intellect. You are the writer, narrator and actor of a movie you have playing in your head; the witness, judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Couchpotato]

When did I say you could? I asked you first. Then I asked you to find someone else.

I never said I or anyone else could perform miracles so what the fuck are you talking about?

This is a series of questions that will leave you no option but to claim miracles are real because you say they are.

Feel free to post the quote of me saying that.

Then maybe you will have a moment of clarity.

 

[badger2]

I'm pretty sure I have addressed this before but....

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is anything which moves from a lower state to a higher state; a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

Does that answer your question? And BTW... this is an example of explaining what something is as opposed to criticizing it. I create. You tear down because you do not possess the intellectual capacity to explain what something is. Primarily because atheism does not require any intellect whatsoever.

But 5. is precisely why an absolute infinity such as "god" is impossible, because nothing is immune from the spacing of time. Thus Derrida's 'trace' is more original than god as
Haegglund writes in Radical Atheism.

 

[ding]

But 5. is precisely why an absolute infinity such as "god" is impossible, because nothing is immune from the spacing of time. Thus Derrida's 'trace' is more original than god as
Haegglund writes in Radical Atheism.

Time doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. The best anyone can say is that time is a convenient measure of the expansion of the universe.

So outside of our existence time is meaningless. But to your point there cannot be an infinite number of causes which is precisely why God is the logical answer to the first cause.

 

[ding]

I never said I or anyone else could perform miracles so what the fuck are you talking about?

Feel free to post the quote of me saying that.

He must think you are a Christian. His tone would change by 180 degrees if you told him you were not.

 

[Insaneworld]

If you are a Christian that is the belief though. It's really not a negotiable thing. It is literally THE core belief of the religion. If you dont believe that the only way to get to heaven is though Christ then you are by definition NOT a Christian. And according to the Bible you are will be condemned for that. God has set a very easy condition for your salvation, and for you to be in his presence after your death. If you do not wish to be in his presence he will not force that upon you, and thus after death you would be cast into hell to spend eternity separated from Him.

I mean we could go on in circles here. You have your view, I have mine. In my view, Christianity absolute IS malleable as a belief system, if you only look to history you would see this. The INTERPETATION of 'salvation' as 'heaven' is part of what you use to justify your reasoning here. I don't share it, salvation can mean more than just getting into heaven. Jesus is indeed salvation for all, but it's not an exclusive thing I think, those who did not (for whatever reason) learn of Jesus in their time are not NECESSARILY doomed, nor are those who fail to gain GENUINE faith for God. It depends, in my belief. And I could be wrong, but your appeals to authority are not convincing.

You try to place your views as 'canonical' because you point to an established orthodox faith, without realizing how dynamic and in flux that orthodox faith is, and how it has been repeatedly changed by humans, not God.

What you have observed is irrelevant. Not sure if you're aware of this but unless you're Godyou dont get to set the parameters by which you or anyone else gets to enter Heaven. You can consider yourself whatever you want. That and 2.50 will get you a shitty cup of coffee at 7/11.

To you, because you are so within the orthodox what I say does not register. You are not the only person here, there's plenty more minds. It's okay if you don't agree with me, I really don't mind it. You are but another mortal, like me, with strong opinions. We could go on in circles since we will not reach any agreement here, but it would likely not be interesting either.

I mean you're again just pretending like YOU get to dictate what the rules are, while telling others they don't get to do it. It IS kinda funny lol. If I am wrong, or if you are wrong, so be it, right? God makes the rules, we do our best to understand them.

 

[Couchpotato]

I mean we could go on in circles here. You have your view, I have mine. In my view, Christianity absolute IS malleable as a belief system, if you only look to history you would see this. You try to place your views as 'canonical' because you point to an established orthodox faith, without realizing how dynamic and in flux that orthodox faith is, and how it has been repeatedly changed by humans, not God.

That's just a wildly insane take. The Bible is very clear about this subject. Its just not a debatable thing. Can you point to a single verse in the Bible that refutes what I've said? You're opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I can point to verse after verse after verse.

To you, because you are so within the orthodox what I say does not register. You are not the only person here, there's plenty more minds. It's okay if you don't agree with me, I really don't mind it. You are but another mortal, like me, with strong opinions. We could go on in circles, as we will not reach any agreement here, and it would likely not be interesting either.

What you're saying "doesnt register" because it's just factually outside the beliefs of Christian religion. These aren my ideas or some shit I just came up with.

Acts 2:38
Acts 4:12
John 14:6
Titus 3:5
Ephesians 2:8-9
John 3:16-18
Romans 10:9-10
John 15

 

[Insaneworld]

That's just a wildly insane take. The Bible is very clear about this subject. Its just not a debatable thing. Can you point to a single verse in the Bible that refutes what I've said? You're opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I can point to verse after verse after verse.


What you're saying "doesnt register" because it's just factually outside the beliefs of Christian religion. These aren my ideas or some shit I just came up with.

Acts 2:38
Acts 4:12
John 14:6
Titus 3:5
Ephesians 2:8-9
John 3:16-18
Romans 10:9-10
John 15

Ah yes, the new testament of which was decided after long deliberation by politically well-connected humans in the Roman Empire. Centuries after Jesus's death. Nice lol.