Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1389967 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
Links to what? An earlier page in this thread? SERIOUSLY, This is getting ridiculous with you.YES for example, the thread has grown big enough to not understand which part makes you feel uncomfortable. In case of this topic, you can just provide the page number instead of a full link. And please stop ignoring context of any phrase you reply. You've been given a quote that was replied to, so read it first, then read the answer, then think, then reply. All steps are essential.
As for Fatima, If I understand correctly, you are saying Fatima was not an optical illusion because the catholic church says so?I wonder did anyone of you bother reading about how such a decision was made.
But they are good they should go to heaven and if they aren't hell. The prayers shouldn't make a difference in a just system since a rich person could just pay people to pray for them.The level of a person's "goodness" required to avoid Hel in probably person-dependant, and the main purpose of a prayer is a sacrifice of time and efforts, initiated by compassion, duty, perseverance or any other stimuli, up to full-scale love of neighbor. The stimuli involved affect the worthiness of prayer, and the intentions of a praying one affect this as well. Yes, a person can pay others to pray for his salvation, this is probably a good deed, I'm just not sure, because just giving money is not enough, you need to present some kind of compassion. Spiritual harms, that are part of the damage caused by sins, can be repaired with love and God's efforts, He said He will provide these if one will make spiritual sacrifices for someone's cause. About "system" - God is no machine, He is like a father of all us the children, and is always open for us confessing our mistakes. If a child of ours will do bad and will come to his father who loves him, and will confess of that deed, he might be punished if that deed is harsh, but will be forgiven. If not, sometimes other children could see the damage done and repair, so the mistaken child won't catch punishment of any kind, when the father will finally see something went wrong. Something like this, but on a lot larger scale, is between God and Christians.
but my point is that God supposedly gives people morals and if he is standard on morals why should he ever change. I follow the evolved morals of humans but the Bible doesn't.The main point is "evolved" - where did it turn to? God does not change, His morales are only enhanced but never dropped. It was never accepted to kill once said "thou must not kill" against a certain group of people. Firstly it was said only over Jewish themselves, Jesus expanded this to every living person. Here go all your "genocides" in the OT, by the way.
Proven to be documented before the miracle?Yes, the documents are dated 1 month before. The vision itself was a part of the Miracle of the Sun, still only children have seen them.
E1337 pictureSeveral non-sequiturs are carefully hidden in there. Say right center, "if one state's law allows abortion then abortion is not murder" - in that particular country, probably, but not worldwide which is stated. The reverse is located in the very center, resulting in an artificial contradiction. This picture is a logical fail. Still, nice example of sarcasm.
Not really, the point is using YOUR morals, beliefs etc in regards to SOMEONE ELSE'S decision is facist in this case. It would be like me deciding that you should not reproduce and saying you must get castrated.
Well, the only way one can attack a particular argument is to attack the argument, not say another argument is better.
It's more important to read the 2nd and 3rd statements than the steps that follow to justify the reductio ad absurdum.
Until then, the decision making is done by the amygdala.This part is unbacked. Reading through general info about Amygdala, I haven't found any clues to this influence.
The Amygdala handles emotions, primitive responses (Fight or flight for example) and memory. Hence why teens make rather poor decisions, for they act on emotions and not forethought most of the time. (this is also why abstenice only never works, for the teen is thinking with their emotions and primitive responses, which in most teen males, consist roughly 95% of sex/how to get sex).Primitive responses yes, emotions - to be researched, and it's unclear as of yet what role do the amygdalae play in emotional reactions. And tell me please, if a person haven't been taught to think first, from his very childhood, why are you calling abstinence approach fruitless? By the way, what is "most of the time"? Also, 75% of statistics are made up.
But God could not accept morals that are not virtuous in themselves.It looks like the M in this statement is different from M in the first one. What do we call morals does not always equal to be "morals from God". Or you have malformed the logical representation of the wording. "God" G "could not accept" !-> (does not follow) "morals that are not virtuous" ~M. This makes "!(G -> ~M)", inverting this results in "G & M".
(G -> ~M)
Not really, the point is using YOUR morals, beliefs etc in regards to SOMEONE ELSE'S decision is facist in this caseAin't all state laws do the same? They take someone else's (lawmaker's) justifications and apply it to your decisions. Do you mind ditching all the laws on the same basis?
(Yes I can also use reductio ad absurdum, if it's thrown at me)
It looks like the M in this statement is different from M in the first one. What do we call morals does not always equal to be "morals from God".
Hmm...to remove the fallacy of equivocation or any other fallacy:
God could not accept morals that are not virtuous in themselves.
1. God can accept morals only if they are virtuous in themselves. (which is restating the above)
2. God implies that no morals are virtuous in themselves
1. (V <-> M) [X is virtuous if and only if it is moral]
2. G -> ~(M -> V) [God implies that morals don't imply that they are virtues in themselves]
3. G -> (M -> V) [We made 1 a conditional M -> V, and we added an additional antecedent]
4. And we have the original 1,2 here:
1. (G -> M)
2. (G -> ~M) [an apparent contradiction from 1]
3. (M -> ~G) [Contraposition from 2]
4. (G -> ~G) [A syllogistic inference from 1,3 - and this is the antecedent of the quoted text]
5. ( (G -> ~G) -> ~G ) [A tautology]
6. ~G [Modus ponens from 4,5]
The main point is "evolved" - where did it turn to? God does not change, His morales are only enhanced but never dropped. It was never accepted to kill once said "thou must not kill" against a certain group of people. Firstly it was said only over Jewish themselves, Jesus expanded this to every living person. Here go all your "genocides" in the OT, by the way.
What is the difference between evolution and being enhanced?
Yes, the documents are dated 1 month before. The vision itself was a part of the Miracle of the Sun, still only children have seen them.
Is there any proof that this was not faked?
The level of a person's "goodness" required to avoid Hel in probably person-dependant, and the main purpose of a prayer is a sacrifice of time and efforts, initiated by compassion, duty, perseverance or any other stimuli, up to full-scale love of neighbor. The stimuli involved affect the worthiness of prayer, and the intentions of a praying one affect this as well. Yes, a person can pay others to pray for his salvation, this is probably a good deed, I'm just not sure, because just giving money is not enough, you need to present some kind of compassion. Spiritual harms, that are part of the damage caused by sins, can be repaired with love and God's efforts, He said He will provide these if one will make spiritual sacrifices for someone's cause. About "system" - God is no machine, He is like a father of all us the children, and is always open for us confessing our mistakes. If a child of ours will do bad and will come to his father who loves him, and will confess of that deed, he might be punished if that deed is harsh, but will be forgiven. If not, sometimes other children could see the damage done and repair, so the mistaken child won't catch punishment of any kind, when the father will finally see something went wrong. Something like this, but on a lot larger scale, is between God and Christians.
How can it be person dependant how good they need to be to get into heaven. There needs to be a basis or else the system is pointless because god just decides at random heaven or hell. And why isn't god a machine. A human makes mistakes and a machine doesn't, surely God doesn't make mistakes. I don't get what you mean by the stuff about not buying prayer. Does this mean if someone loves you you go to heaven? That's a bit unfair to people whose loved ones are dead.
I like how you all just completely took this away and buttraped it. You're all *****
I like how you all just completely took this away and buttraped it. You're all *****
When you provide proof we will stop. Until you do we won't
What is the difference between evolution and being enhanced?What is the difference between "evolved" and "erverted"?
Is there any proof that this was not faked?If the Miracle of the Sun is true, then it's of divine work, this means that God is manifest in this. One cannot lie before God.
Your Google fu is weakYou seem to overestimate "occasionally" and "more likely". No probability data or statistics are present. Even if an adult behaves by impulse at 0% chance, it's wrong stating that an adolescent behaves by impulse at 50% or more. Also, amygdala involvement in general decision making is small, however there is involvement, while you state it entirely depends on the amygdala. Cortex development, while being in progress, does not prevent an adolescent to think before acting. About emotions - your third link states with open text:
(and the other links)
How the human brain processes emotions is unclear.Even given the following text and the other research tidbits, we're down to fear and stress handling, and probably other instinct-like emotions like lust. This isn't enough to speak about explained sorrow, what HahiHa claimed to have. Emotions, especially primal anger and fear, can overwhelm and cloud one's mind, and it looks like this happens more often with adolescents. But an emotion like admiration or sorrow is not based on lust or fear, this requires additional research to attempt to describe this. So far this is the sphere of a soul, not body.
1. (V <-> M) [X is virtuous if and only if it is moral]I expect a malformed 2nd statement, with M <-> V "~(M->V)" is always false. "Virtues in themselves" and "morale" is an empty set, while "every virtue is morale, and every morale is virtue" is not. This just signifies that if God, then "virtues in themselves" do not exist. This is however true, because then virtues just originate from God, and they don't need to originate from elsewhere. But, this also means that whatever is named "virtue in itself", and not a virtue in eyes of God, originates from either human or devil.
2. G -> ~(M -> V) [God implies that morals don't imply that they are virtues in themselves]
3. G -> (M -> V) [We made 1 a conditional M -> V, and we added an additional antecedent]
4. And we have the original 1,2 here:
However, since the fetus is not considered a person and since neither science nor religion can agree on when a fetus becomes a personReligion agreed, it's those protestants that lost the connection with Christ as a community, but still claim that they are in connection, lead others into Hell. Science didn't as of yet.
Actually, the laws have reasoning.Well, pro-life movement's ideals also have reasoning. That's why a pro-life VS pro-choice is attempting to provide one's reasons to another, with pro-choice's reasoning being inacceptable to pro-life one. This might look like a believer VS atheist in miniature, but if the believer and atheist argue about each other's lives, pro-life and pro-choice argue about someone else's life, which isn't acceptable by reason. It's like me and my mother would argue about your life, whether you are to live or not.
The court found that the state has no compelling reason to interfere what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, therefore the state's reason is not compelling in so much as preventing promiscuity.Yep, that's not for the state to interfere, but for the Church if either belongs there.
How can it be person dependant how good they need to be to get into heaven.Easily. People are granted with talents, one can draw, one can sing, etc etc, and someone can't do anything, let's say because he's zero-armed and zero-legged, and say blind. The one that can use his talent towards the good of neighbor will be asked how did he implement the talent given. The one that can't employ a thing will be asked a lot less, if anything at all, since such a life is indeed suffering, and if he was told about God and wished to remain alive just for Him, his virtue of suffering for pardoning of human's sins is greatly valued. Even if that impaired person will seek death, it might be because his will is influenced by those that are around, and God looks at this and can pardon his suicide. Who has been given much, will be asked for much.
I don't get what you mean by the stuff about not buying prayer. Does this mean if someone loves you you go to heaven? That's a bit unfair to people whose loved ones are dead.Not buying prayer - buying prayer has also the buyer's intentions involved, so if he had a bad intention, those bought prayers won't do him as much. If someone loves you, you go to Heaven? Maybe - not always tho. And it's not unfair towards those whose loved ones are dead. Those that in Heaven are praying for us. Haven't you heart about All Saints Litany, where after each saint there's a call "ray for us"?
If there is no evidence then just say there's no God. There's no evidence for unicorns but that doesn't mean people believe in them. [...] You can't disprove Gods existence
We can't prove god's existence, so -> we can't force anyone to believe. There is nothing bad into believe in something that has not been proved, unless it has been proved to be false. We haven't proved it is false yet, so it's legitimate to believe in something we don't know it's true or false. Of course there are arguments against god's existence, but they have been argued against. The same apply to those arguments pro god's existence.
The fact that it's never a holy mother highlights the sexism.
Mother Mary is holy and she is a mother.
Angels are said to have no sex. It is just the bible tradition which gave them male names. As I said before, Christianity is not only the bible.
What you are talking about next is pantheism I think and not Christianity.
Catholicism refuses pantheism, Christianity in general does not.
So you follow the OT then.
I do not. Christianity is not the OT. Saying that Christianity is only OT is something like saying that who is no Christian is like the ancient Roman who persecuted Christians. It's no true at all! That happened in the past (until 313 a.D. I think, but that's not the point), but nowadays it happens no more.
And by that logic you should follow my religion which has a really short holy book to save on printing. It is Do what you think is right
I already do. I think I should respect other people... hey, modern Christianity says the same, I agree with it. I think ..., modern Christianity says the same, and so on. There are some minor things that I may not agree with, but as I said the are minor aspects.
The prayers shouldn't make a difference in a just system since a rich person could just pay people to pray for them.
Well this actually happens... in middle ages! Nowadays no one pay someone to pray.
YES for example, the thread has grown big enough to not understand which part makes you feel uncomfortable. In case of this topic, you can just provide the page number instead of a full link. And please stop ignoring context of any phrase you reply. You've been given a quote that was replied to, so read it first, then read the answer, then think, then reply. All steps are essential.
We covered what an atheist would accept as evidence early on in this thread and there is even another thread in the WEPR dealing with that topic. Just because we don't accept your subjective evidence, heavily bias claims, and out right denial of facts (whether intentional or not) does not mean nothing would convince us. It might mean you have nothing that would convince us though. In which case feel free to ask God to provide us with the required evidence that would convince us himself. I'm sure being an all powerful all knowing entity he should be fully capable of knowing exactly what it would take and be able to produce it. Even if it was something that we were unaware of ourselves.
It might mean you have nothing that would convince us though. In which case feel free to ask God to provide us with the required evidence that would convince us himself. I'm sure being an all powerful all knowing entity he should be fully capable of knowing exactly what it would take and be able to produce it. Even if it was something that we were unaware of ourselves.I do, I do... this is the least I can do. Yes, I'm trying to convince you, and it's quite possible I'll fail. I don't like to fail in anything, but sometimes one has to. It might be a lesson of humbleness for me, I think I need to take some.
We can't prove god's existence, so -> we can't force anyone to believe. There is nothing bad into believe in something that has not been proved, unless it has been proved to be false.
If you accept one thing that hasn't been proven then why do you not accept everything that hasn't been proven? Why not believe in fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns? In fact those things have an even greater chance of existing given their limited nature as apposed to Gods unlimited nature.
I do not. Christianity is not the OT. Saying that Christianity is only OT is something like saying that who is no Christian is like the ancient Roman who persecuted Christians. It's no true at all! That happened in the past (until 313 a.D. I think, but that's not the point), but nowadays it happens no more.
I do find the rejection of much of the OT at odds with what the NT states. Not saying that's a bad thing considering what the OT says.
Well this actually happens... in middle ages! Nowadays no one pay someone to pray.
Televangelists...
What is the difference between "evolved" and "erverted"?
What exactly are you implying?
If the Miracle of the Sun is true, then it's of divine work, this means that God is manifest in this. One cannot lie before God.
If it's true? I thought you would hate 'if' or 'what if' statements? Now you base a whole answer on one?
So far this is the sphere of a soul, not body.
So far you fill the gap with 'soul', not understanding that the progress being made is in progress, meaning if we don't have the answer now, we will soon. That's your decision, I just wanted to show you we have the means to explain emotions; we just have to find out about the fine-tuning.
Filling the gap with a soul is , imo, wishful thinking, and not searching for answers.
We can't prove god's existence, so -> we can't force anyone to believe. There is nothing bad into believe in something that has not been proved, unless it has been proved to be false. We haven't proved it is false yet, so it's legitimate to believe in something we don't know it's true or false.
Righto. That's why I hate missionarism. Let others believe what they want.
If the Miracle of the Sun is true, then it's of divine work, this means that God is manifest in this. One cannot lie before God.
And because it is of divine work and people see it and think they know the only true type of divine and think they see God. And you can lie before God since he lies before us.
What is the difference between "evolved" and "erverted"?
what is the difference between Christianity and a fantasy. This is obviously a trolling question since you must know what they mean and are just being stupid.
Religion agreed, it's those protestants that lost the connection with Christ as a community, but still claim that they are in connection, lead others into Hell. Science didn't as of yet.
Protestants say that by replacing it with catholic. It is a claim with no proof and you need to prove it.
Yep, that's not for the state to interfere, but for the Church if either belongs there.
So if you believe in a fantasy some idiot in a hat can dictate what you do in your private life.
Easily. People are granted with talents, one can draw, one can sing, etc etc, and someone can't do anything, let's say because he's zero-armed and zero-legged, and say blind. The one that can use his talent towards the good of neighbor will be asked how did he implement the talent given. The one that can't employ a thing will be asked a lot less, if anything at all, since such a life is indeed suffering, and if he was told about God and wished to remain alive just for Him, his virtue of suffering for pardoning of human's sins is greatly valued. Even if that impaired person will seek death, it might be because his will is influenced by those that are around, and God looks at this and can pardon his suicide. Who has been given much, will be asked for much.
Again, God knows what will happen so he is condemning people to hell by giving them talents which he knows they will misuse. And how does he choose who gets what talents.
What is the difference between "evolved" and "erverted"?I mean, with morale it's not always clear which way it is shifting. So what one person can call "evolved", another can call "erverted". I request why qwerty1011 claims that current morale evolved in such a way that the Bible should follow.
What exactly are you implying?
If it's true? I thought you would hate 'if' or 'what if' statements? Now you base a whole answer on one?Okay, if you accept the Miracle of Fatima as true. The point is that we don't agree on its truth so far. I assume it being true, therefore I claim God manifesting in this, and since those children are in close contact with God, they can't lie about there being Holy Family.
Agreed, I don't like "what if" statements, especially if they are based on something that can't already happen, aka "what if false". "If" statements are part of logic, and are acceptable.
So far you fill the gap with 'soul', not understanding that the progress being made is in progress, meaning if we don't have the answer now, we will soon.I am aware of this, I still expect this research to fail, but if not, I think I'll be glad about another glimpse of God's wisdom discovered. I don't think humanity will prove that ther is no room for a soul... Wishful thinking? Maybe, or maybe one could use Occam's razor here, claiming all the details about chemicals unnecessary, at least at this level of knowledge. Occam's razor does not, to my awareness, restrict the process of gaining knowledge. I remember when particle physics researchers used that to limit the particles to electron, positron, neutron and proton - and muon and pion. Now we have 4 types of quarks with anti-quarks, and theories that effectively use the same principle of not enhancing beyond reason.
You must be logged in to post a reply!