A challenge for the brave

a reply to: luciferslight

Well if you divide an apple (God) and cut it into smaller pieces you get more apples (demigods) or humans. We are omnipotent, we just lost our powers from technology. I think that's what causes the downfall of man. Technology. I dont mean modern technology, i mean ancient technology that made us, lose our brain power over simple matters of life.

I don't understand how you come to your conclusions. This is why I asked people to start at the basics .

a reply to: LittleByLittle


You seemed to have jumped way ahead. All the way to your theology. Take me on the mental path that brought you to this conclusion one step at a time.

a reply to: enterthestage

A 2000 (or earlier) year old dying godman myth with a ressurection is far from unique to Christ. That makes it equally likely that Horus is God or Osiris and Isis. The likelihood is equal, one is popular and one isn't and Christ is newer. I don't wonder why they believe it, I know why.

Why do you jump straight to Christianity? This thread isn't about Christianity its about what you think the world is actually like. Since you are obviously more intelligent please enlighten me.

I'll do you one better. I view the world coherently. Coherent is my world view.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Instinct. And don't trust the church. Read EVERYTHING that is ancient and relevant to EVERY faith and religion before you decide. Don't sell your soul to one or any church.

If we use this as ground zero. The very basics upon which we build the rest of our knowledge then logically we must conclude that if any one church or religion is true then we would never know Truth. This seems to be a faulty starting place. I don't think this is really your ground zero for acquiring knowledge.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

I believe your born and you die. There is no reward, no punishment, no paradise, no hell. Your born, you die, and you return to the universe; Whether you return to the universe figuratively or literally I don't know and I don't care. Ill find out when I am dead, If there is no afterlife Ill be too dead to care.

When you say you are born. Do you mean your body or is there a difference between you and your body? Do you have free will? Are there moral truths?

a reply to: rockintitz

My truth is different than yours, and your truth is different than theirs.

Well i suppose I don't know what you mean by truth here. I think you mean what you believe to be true can be different from what someone else believes to be true. However, if these beliefs contradict then one of the positions cannot be correctly labeled as true.

You can argue for eons and never come to a conclusion. Your truth belongs to you and you only.

Well I originally asked you if someone can know their own existence for sure, I never really asked if someone can know of another persons existence. I gave you the Latin phrase, Cogito Ergo Sum, I think therefore I am. You may not be able to verify my existence but you can verify your own, right?

So you are saying we could argue for eons about the question What is two plus two? If so, I would have to ask if we can know logical truths with 100% certainty ?

a reply to: JDeLattre89

First, I find it absurd that you would ask everyone else to do what you are either unwilling or more likely unable to do yourself. So where is YOUR proof of your position?

Anyone who has spoken with me on here knows I am more than willing to give reasons. In fact I make threads on the topic quite often, and I welcome criticism. However that was not the point of this thread.

Now, I will address your question. Ground Zero For Acquiring Knowledge ~ Knowing that you know nothing. One must first get beyond themselves and the preconceptions (what they were told is right all of their lives).

Ok. That would be the point of going to ground zero right and asking how we are to properly acquire knowledge. So where do we start. You say go to all religions, but that doesn't tell me how to acquire knowledge. It tells me where I may find knowledge. I'll ask you the same as I asked another earlier. What can you and I know with 100% certainty?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You already have a thread going. If you want to bail, then bail on that thread. You don't actually think that starting another similar thread is going to divert away from your posts, do you????

Why do people keep making these false claims?

a reply to: TzarChasm

The scientific method. Also let's not pretend that this is not just another performance by proxy post. These threads where you try to make creationism look good by making the evolution or science look foolish are getting a little dull.

So you are saying the scientific method is ground zero, but does the scientific method not rely on certain assumptions? Such as what David Hume would call the uniformity of nature, and it most definitely relies upon logical truths.

How do you get from ground zero to there is an external reality? Now don't get me wrong. I'd say it is probable there is an external reality, but I am more concerned with things I can know with 100% certainity since we are starting at the basics.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If you actually knew me you would know how wrong you are. I do actually care about all of you, and if you think I am wrong good for you. Please tell me what is right. Please tell me these beliefs you have based on science, logic, and reason.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

In the same way an animal is born. You have a certain level of awareness, intelligence and appearance dependant on natural determination.

Your asking questions no one will ever be able to answer, only the dead know. Basing your life on assumption, faith and baseless "truths" is a waste of time.

Religion evolved from the superstition of natural gods, like the sun, being able to hear your prayers. This evolved and was condensed into a singular God in charge off all these aspects of previous gods for convinence.

a reply to: rockintitz

I think you are confusing objective truth with something universally agreed upon. Objective simply means that it is independent of human opinion. It does not mean everyone has to agree upon it. That is like saying people cannot believe falsehoods. So for example the statement, "Something is itself" is objectively true. It is expressed logically as A=A.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
In your first comment please explain where you think a person should start when it comes to finding truth, what is ground zero for acquiring knowledge

The Copenhagen interpretation posited by physicist Niels Bohr basically states…. it is not that a physicist does not know the facts about an individual particles exact location it is that there simply are no facts.In other words it is not an epistemological(what you know) it is ontological(about what is).

At the very core of existence of matter epistemology fails to enlighten human perception.Scientist make their postulation by observation of experiments and no matter what facts they glean, as Niels has pointed out, they still do not know “what is”(unified theory).

Therefore your fundamental question is a red herring.There is no true path ground zero to truth that humans can observe simply because they do not (and cannot) “know” what ALL the facts are because at the core there are no facts to be known only observations.

Just because ontologically truth(true knowledge of reality) is a conundrum doesn’t mean humans should not or do not pursue it however to prove the existence of a creator God through any human method is futile.Humans cannot even prove or perceive the true existence of the material realm.In other words the perception of a creator God by the construct of religious belief through faith is hubris and the height of foolishness yet Christianity claims they can despite every speck of evidence proving the contrary that is unreasonable.

The bottom line is humans that believe Christianity is true are proving they are enacting the human conundrum because the amalgamation of all of a persons experiences forms their belief through faith of “their” Belief System(BS) religion.In other words ALL of humanity are religious because ALL of human perception of their life is “religion(belief through faith) even the so called atheist.

The main difference between a theist(God believer) and an atheist(non God believer) is the theist believes in a God that does not and cannot exist because it is a byproduct of their BS and the atheist does not believe in a God at all.Therefore it is incalculably more reasonable to NOT believe in a God that does not exist than to believe in a God that does not exist.

That does not necessarily mean the theist is acting malevolently it just means they are significantly more ignorant of the truth because it is their nature(religious) and character(religion).In that sense they cannot help but believe their own BS.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I am not asking for you to come and show that you do not like the evidence given for Christianity. I am asking for you to come and give evidence for your own beliefs. Rejecting the evidence of Christianity is not evidence for your position. I am NOT asking you to simply state what you believe. I want you to try and convince me with logic and evidence.

Your first question(give evidence of your beliefs) is the reddest of the red herrings and is a loaded statement because there is no factual evidence of anyones belief.The beliefs of a person are personal observation perceptions that cannot be known by anyone else the way the believers believes.It’s like saying give the evidence of the way your mitochondria reacts to you eating a tunafish sandwich because chances are you don’t even truly know.

The bottom line is what has been stated to you numerous times on these threads you start on ATS.Your insistence on “proving” the truth of Christianity and belief in your God is unreasonable.All you are doing is throwing religious bombs into a crowd of people and hoping to save them when you are being blown up by your own petards(religious bombs).I commend you on wanting to think seriously about existence however your thought process is convoluted because it is seeking to confirm your BS beliefs not the truth and you have the two confused.

By the very process you are pursuing you are providing the abundant evidence you do not know.You have not heard what you claim to have heard.Yahoshua stated seek and you will find and that is exactly what you have done thinking you have sought and are finding truth when it is only confirmation bias of your beliefs(which ironically become more beliefs and so on and so on) which is a vicious cycle of religious belief.

Unfortunately(and fortunately) there is no way for you to extricate yourself from that vicious cycle because it feeds on itself like a ouroboros.However Yahoshua did offer the solution with a caveat that those that blaspheme the holy spirit will not have forgiveness( the Greek word aphesis which means freed from bondage) in this age(the physical real life ) nor the next(Hades the realm of death).

In other words he is describing your(and a multitude of the religion-religious) current condition.You are in the bondage of your religion-religion.You cannot escape from it because your are not aware you are in bondage to it so even if the gate was opened you would not leave your prison of relgion because your confirmation bias cannot perceive the prison you are in bondage to(this is what Yahoshua told the Jewish religious leaders over and over and why they plotted to have him murdered).

The Good news(as opposed to Christianity’s bad news) is ALL of mankind(including you and the rest who believe Christianity and all religions) WILL be freed from their bondage of religious- religion in what John saw as the lake of fire that is why it was called the 2nd death.After you have died to your religion then you can Live however you will suffer great loss from your “tormenting”(testing of precious metals of the touchstone) in the book of Revelation they are called rewards/ benefits.

The only reasonable thing you can do about your religious state of mind is nothing because logic predicates you are incapable of knowing your current state of mind condition.The only way you can change(repent) now is if there is a creator God and they change your current condition.You will truly be blessed(a state of joy) if they do however you show no shows of that happening currently.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

Your asking questions no one will ever be able to answer, only the dead know. Basing your life on assumption, faith and baseless "truths" is a waste of time.

How do you know that no one will ever be able to answer them?

There is something known as Leibniz's Law it is stated below:

(i) If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has.

(ii) If for any property x has, y has, and for any property y has, x has, then x is identical to y.

So with this in mind I'll ask again is there a difference between you and your body? If there is not, then how can one speak of free choice and reason?

Religion evolved from the superstition of natural gods, like the sun, being able to hear your prayers. This evolved and was condensed into a singular God in charge off all these aspects of previous gods for convinence.

You seemed to have made a leap from ground zero to this. i don't understand why you believe this to be the case.

a reply to: Rex282

The Copenhagen interpretation posited by physicist Niels Bohr basically states…. it is not that a physicist does not know the facts about an individual particles exact location it is that there simply are no facts.In other words it is not an epistemological(what you know) it is ontological(about what is). At the very core of existence of matter epistemology fails to enlighten human perception.Scientist make their postulation by observation of experiments and no matter what facts they glean, as Niels has pointed out, they still do not know “what is”(unified theory). Therefore your fundamental question is a red herring.There is no true path ground zero to truth that humans can observe simply because they do not (and cannot) “know” what ALL the facts are because at the core there are no facts to be known only observations.

From my understanding epistemology is also how you know. Asking how are we to acquire knowledge is not a red herring, especially when it was the first question asked. What could I possibly be attempting to distract you from. I simply want to find common ground with the people I am talking to and move on from there.

How do you jump from lets start at the basics to quantum mechanics?

Just because ontologically truth(true knowledge of reality) is a conundrum doesn’t mean humans should not or do not pursue it however to prove the existence of a creator God through any human method is futile.Humans cannot not even prove or perceive the true existence of the material realm

I agree we as humans are very limited, but I do believe there a just a few things we can know with 100% certainty and the existence of an external material world would not be one of those things.

The main difference between a theist(God believer) and an atheist(non God believer) is the theist believes in a God that does not and cannot exist because it is a byproduct of their BS and the atheist does not believe in a God at all.Therefore it is incalculably more reasonable to NOT believe in a God that does not exist than to believe in a God that does not exist.

Well sure if you define a theists as someone who believes in a God who does not exists then of course it would be an irrational position. I don't think this is actually how I would define theist and it seems close minded to do so.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Raggedyman

What do you think of evolutionists preaching evolution, demanding that it's the truth, forcing it at people

That's just gibberish, the fact that you fail to understand Evolutionary Theory does not render it as "untruthful".

What about atheists who decry Christians, attack and push atheism

As I said stop trying to enforce your beliefs on the rest of society & they will have no reason to "decry or attack".

You people just can't get it through your heads.

Don't like abortion, don't have one.
Tell someone else they can't have one then yea you're stepping outside your line.

Don't like gay sex, fine don't have any but keep your pointless condemnation to your self unless you see someone getting hurt.

Don't like gay marriage don't have one but don't believe that your secular business that operates under secular law is somehow about your god.


K~

So your saying I deny a persons right to gay relationship, to abortion really, care to point it out in any of my threads, please go ahead, I would be very interested
Even happy to remove my comments as that is not what I believe

Outside of the church, you are welcome to do and believe anything you want, never said otherwise

Now how about you take a piece from your own book and let me believe what I want to believe

How about you stop,enforcing your beliefs on the rest of society, meaning you atheism on the religious.
Like a bunch of militant communists these days,

I agree, the religios shouldn't expect the non religios to act like religious
And have said as much, great if you did the same though

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Infinity is even found in the countless intricate indicators of perfection it
takes for existence to only be possible. It's completely rediscovered again
when life happens. And we even see it an impossible third time because we
must consider consciousness.

OP hasn't made this thread to bring you a religion or change the one believe.
He does however point to the boundless impossibilities of our own existence.
Our existence depends over and over again an infinite amount of times on
on exact perfections as if it were a signature of its originator.

OP simply points to the absurdity of denial.

Well done

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

The scientific method. Also let's not pretend that this is not just another performance by proxy post. These threads where you try to make creationism look good by making the evolution or science look foolish are getting a little dull.

So you are saying the scientific method is ground zero, but does the scientific method not rely on certain assumptions? Such as what David Hume would call the uniformity of nature, and it most definitely relies upon logical truths.

How do you get from ground zero to there is an external reality? Now don't get me wrong. I'd say it is probable there is an external reality, but I am more concerned with things I can know with 100% certainity since we are starting at the basics.

What assumptions does the scientific method make and how do they compromise its reliability?

a reply to: TzarChasm

What assumptions does the scientific method make and how do they compromise its reliability?

Well it assumes basic laws of logic and that deductive reasoning is a valid form of determining what is true.. It assumes the principle of uniformity in nature. It assumes that an external reality exists and by studying it you can acquire knowledge about some unperceived instance within the future. How do we justify all these beliefs?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Then you need to proclaim that you are an AGNOSTIC.

Because you are correct, you don't know, and you can not know.

So stop with the judgment and proselytizing and condemnation and insistence that "Jesus is coming back", and meanwhile pissing about that you don't have to do jack squat for your fellow humans......
and if anyone tries to tell you you must, you will spit in their faces.

"The least you did for one of these, you did also to me. I never knew you."

No, on the contrary. I have faith that God is there. I do not need proof for this. Please look up the definition of faith. It does not require proof ... although I have had my personal experiences that have reinforced the faith that was already there.

In order for me to declare that my faith is absolute reality, scientific fact, I would have to have proof in the manner of a scientist proving his hypothesis such that you could go and expect to follow my experiment exactly and produce your own results.

But as I don't have that (my personal experiences are simply anecdotal and circumstantial, not concrete to anyone else), the best I can do is speak with my own personal conviction and you will either accept that or you will not. It is, basically, the very essence of proselytizing and I do not see it as such but as simply speaking about what faith is to me in those threads about the topic.

As far as your unwarranted personal attack, you do not know "jack" about me or how I live my life. The idea that I "do nothing" for my fellow human beings is an attitude you simply prefer to take because it makes you feel morally superior, but you actually don't know anything about what I do or don't do, and I won't get into it here because such a discussion would be fruitless. Even if I told you I gave up every red cent I ever made, you would still find fault with it.

And lastly, if responding to topics in the religion forum is proselytizing ... then everyone in here does it. So do you.