the man is a prophet.
*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 3:58pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

>> ^enoch:

the man is a prophet.
promote


Sadly, "was" a prophet.

Full show: http://videosift.com/video/Patrice-ONeal-Elephant-in-the-Room

here more good stuff...

http://videosift.com/video/The-Comedians-Comedian-HBO-One-Night-Stand

He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.

Which is/was sad.

>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.


This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.

You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.

Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.

Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.

Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

@spoco2 @shinyblurry

Let's not forget he is a comedian so his routines are going to be exaggerated forms of his true beliefs. Considering the facts, he was in a long term relationship with a woman who most certainly knows her own mind, took on her daughter as his own and eventually after years married her. Also his mother was someone he held in the highest of regard and considered his best friend. It doesn't figure that he could possibly be that much of a woman hater based on this, not to me anyway.

@messenger

"You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking."

This cracked me up, well said dude, well said!

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.

The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.

Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.

Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.


>> ^messenger:
You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.
Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.
Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:
This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

@shinyblurry Flagellating the proverbially expired equine, buddy

I'll make this fast, paragraph by paragraph:

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Baseless assertion.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Sex isn't an idol. Sex happens to be one of the best things a human can experience. If it weren't we would die out. Otherwise, yes, I agree. If something feels like the right thing in my heart, then I do it.

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

Any misery I have caused by violating God's laws are violations against my conscience as well -- things I knew deep down were wrong. Everything else I've done that is against God's laws has had no miserable consequences. Assertion. Assertion. Assertion...>> ^shinyblurry:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death
That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.
The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.
Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.
Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.

What are you talking about? Sex predates everything! Without it, nothing would be created. Sex is not part of life, sex is life. Our only main goals in life are to preserve it and to extend it - in other words, to find food, shelter, and procreate. These are primal and extremely strong urges all living things share.

I know a lot of people say that this is unnatural or that is unnatural but even gay sex is natural. It's nature trying to stunt over-population. It's not a bad thing, just a thing. The arrogance that some people have thinking that whatever we humans do is unnatural is just that. Ultimately nature dictates your behavior, mine, and everyone else's - this includes the creation of God. There was a point for having that belief at one time, and now it's eroding away; it's not because we are becoming more Satanic, it's because we have evolved enough to not only care for our fellow humans across the planet, but also for other living things that share the planet with us. In general, civilization has come to the agreed-upon point that doing good and being good doesn't need a watchman. We have evolved a bit, it's natural, and we don't need religion as much; although some people still do; people like you.

Good day!

>> ^shinyblurry:

Proverbs 14:12
"Blablabla"

I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...

We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.

>> ^messenger:

Your religion is controlling your mind.

I'm with you all the way about other people's frameworks. I love --LOVE-- talking to people who are figuring the truth out by any means, especially by means that are different from mine, or that seem opposed to mine. In fact, I love it so much that I've spent probably around 10,000 words (not an exaggeration) around the Sift in dialogue just with Shinyblurry alone --most of it very civil, and the majority of it (around 7,000 words) in this one vid's comment thread-- so I'd say that I have given him more than a fair shake.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.>> ^heropsycho:

I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Shinyblurry sure knows how to take a giant dump on a thread. Your religion is a pebble in the shoe of honesty, rationality, and humanity for the sake of humanity. Instead of having a conversation about what we know to be personally true -- psychology and emotion -- you grant the "wisdom" of folklore and treat it as fact. There's no book less important than the bible. The book "Everybody Poops" is more relevant to us as a species than the bible.

My entire point is his religion doesn't control his mind. He controls his mind.

>> ^rottenseed:

Shinyblurry sure knows how to take a giant dump on a thread. Your religion is a pebble in the shoe of honesty, rationality, and humanity for the sake of humanity. Instead of having a conversation about what we know to be personally true -- psychology and emotion -- you grant the "wisdom" of folklore and treat it as fact. There's no book less important than the bible. The book "Everybody Poops" is more relevant to us as a species than the bible.


Dude, come on. We know psychology to be true?! That's like saying we know science to be true. Extremely broad, and science has been known to be wrong. I'm not playing the relativism card. I'm a big believer in science, but it's pretty absurd to think science is infallible. Even what we still consider scientific laws we actually already know aren't true. Matter can not be created or destroyed we already know isn't true, since you can convert mass into energy. The law though is still useful to understand the natural world.

But you're saying we know broadly one of the most disputed sciences ever conceived?

@spoco2, I got the same impression from him on the WTF podcast. Funny, but deeply, sadly misogynist.

Baaaaaa Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I saw an email notification that @shinyblurry had put that post referring to mine and thought 'Bah, I'm sick of responding to his bullshit attempts to turn everything into a religious slinging match'.

And yet look what happened. Others took the bait and ran.

Also, @alien_concept, this bit may be comedy, but his discussion with Marc on WTF isn't so much, and you really do get the feeling his views towards women were fucked up. Sad, but true. He always looked on them as having ulterior motives, always looked on relationships as a game to be played... he never got to the point of being comfortable in a relationship, feeling like a partnership at all. It was him trying to keep his ranking within the man-woman dynamic.

Sad.

Shiny... hats off to you sir to being able to stir the shit so well. I am past getting pissed off at your ranting because I know there is no reasoning, no true conversing with you. So now I watch on with amusement and don't even really read what goes on in these slinging matches. The ones where the religious side falls back on 'There is a God, I am right, my book says so.' as the only argument are not fun to talk to.

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

According to the word of God, you are a sinner. According to the word of God, I am a sinner. The difference between you and me is, I have asked God to forgive me, and have chosen to serve Him the rest of my days. I'm not on a powertrip; I'm no better than you are, or anyone else. God doesn't show partiality between persons. Whether you admit to being a sinner or not, you have done what is called sin. It doesn't make you any less guilty if you acknowledge or not.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters. The reason fornication is wrong, among other things, is because sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. When you join together with someone, you become one flesh. God designed sex to be between married couples only. God isn't against pleasure; my point was is that you do what makes you feel good; that is your priority. That is an inherently selfish mindset. Also, moral relativism is essentially nihilism.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

You would love to know God, that is, if He didn't require anything of you. It is because He requires you to modify your behavior that you don't know Him. God makes His existence plain to everything; you reject God because you don't want to know Him. You are suppressing the truth.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

Your idea of truth is something we can never really know for sure. In a word, relativism. Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it.

The word of God is inexaustible. There is more truth there than any person could discover in many lifetimes. Neither am I trying to bend the world to make it fit scripture. Scripture perfectly describes the condition of man, the nature of reality, and the spiritual realm. The world is only comprehensible through scripture.

You say I have the nerve to state what I believe to be true, yet you feel free to tell me I am wrong. You've made your unprovable assertion, the presupposition that there is no God, and from there you dismiss every claim to the contrary, with no evidence; there is nothing there except pathological skepticism.

We're all bad people, because we have all sinned. You think I am pointing the finger at you, which isn't true. All human beings have fallen short of the grace of God. I'm no different. I preach the gospel because I care what happens to you, and everyone else who doesn't know the Lord. You perceive it, incorrectly, as an attack (because the message convicts you), but they are actually the words that lead to life.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.

I absolutely believe Jesus Christ is God, that is true, and why do you think this is something I need to apologize for? You don't believe God is real, but I know that He is, and those who know Him of course will absolutely attest to the fact that He exists and that He loves you and has a plan for your life. You accuse me of not being humble when you are basing your criticism on your own presupposition, that there is no God. According to your own definition of humility, that is a very arrogant thing for you to say.

Your issue is that you believe the truth is some kind of unknowable morass and no one really knows what is going on. That's because your comprehension of the truth is that it's unknowable morass and you don't know what's really going on. Atheism is a religion for people who have no experience with God. The truth is knowable, and you could know God today, if you would serve Him. The fact that you won't is the reason you don't know Him. You regard your personal autonomy as more valuable than what is actually true; you prefer an illusion of control.

>> ^messenger:

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.

What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.



>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...

"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."

Seriously?!

SERIOUSLY?!?!

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.

>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective.

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

>> ^heropsycho:
Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...
"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."
Seriously?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!
Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.
"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is a truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."
Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Patrice is rolling in his in grave.

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective...

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

@shinyblurry
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit.

Bad definition, unless by "knows nothing about the spirit", you mean, "doesn't believe in the same spirit I believe in." I have my own insight into my own experiences with spirituality. So far, they have not led me to necessarily believe in anything supernatural. That makes me a "weak atheist". Would you really respect my insights into "the spirit" more if they had led me to be as fervent as you, but about Taoist Buddhism?

Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing.

False. I have never anywhere stated that there is no creator being, or even that a God doesn't exist. I have stated that God as described in the Bible -- if words have meaning -- cannot exist as such because the set of descriptions are internally inconsistent. Because they contradict each other, they therefore preclude any such entity's existence -- again, if words have meaning. Now, it's possible that there is a God who is described in the Bible, but only if the descriptions there are somewhat inaccurate, which would cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity as God's word, but then it's possible God, for his own reasons, wanted a flawed book to be his voice.

There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

But you don't fall under scenario 2. You just believe you fall under scenario 2. For you to be correct, you would have to know that an omnipotent being is what is revealing something to you. Nobody, not you, not us, can be certain that you are right about that. I can think of two ways you could be wrong: 1) you may suffer from a relatively common mental defect that causes people to be absolutely convinced they are communicating with a superior being; and 2) you are being contacted by a superior being, but you as a human are in no position verify that it is an omnipotent being, as any being significantly superior to you would appear omnipotent to you. In a nutshell, humans don't have perfect understanding of anything except systems they created themselves, such as mathematics and formal logic, so you can't testify that your understanding of your experience is perfect.

About 1), as I've said to you elsewhere on the Sift, I'm not suggesting it to be mean or insulting. It's a common condition, and people of all spiritual stances have suffered from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity [sentence edited for clarity -- I don't mean all spiritual people]. If their accounts were consistent, then there'd appear to be something to it, but they're not. People who have these conditions don't even gravitate to the same religion, if any religion at all. For you to say you are right to the exclusion of all those other people who are equally convicted is arrogant. The same applies to your following arguments:

You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

This part, I get, but what I say above still stands. If one had no other evidence other than an experience like yours, it would make perfect sense for one to believe they had contact with the real God, and that what they were interpreting was exactly true. But there's other evidence: other people have had very similar experiences, often associated with mental injury (falling off a horse and going blind, for the most famous example), and they have come to a wide variety of conclusions based on their own (human) interpretation of the experience. This, to a rational person, should suggest that you may not be right, and that is enough.

Bad definition, unless by "knows nothing about the spirit", you mean, "doesn't believe in the same spirit I believe in." I have my own insight into my own experiences with spirituality. So far, they have not led me to necessarily believe in anything supernatural. That makes me a "weak atheist". Would you really respect my insights into "the spirit" more if they had led me to be as fervent as you, but about Taoist Buddhism?

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

False. I have never anywhere stated that there is no creator being, or even that a God doesn't exist. I have stated that God as described in the Bible -- if words have meaning -- cannot exist as such because the set of descriptions are internally inconsistent. Because they contradict each other, they therefore preclude any such entity's existence -- again, if words have meaning. Now, it's possible that there is a God who is described in the Bible, but only if the descriptions there are somewhat inaccurate, which would cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity as God's word, but then it's possible God, for his own reasons, wanted a flawed book to be his voice.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture. To the point:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned"

Without the Holy Spirit, you are incapable of understanding scripture. Like you, I once had a number of things picked out in the bible which I believed were contradictory or demonstrated that God is not who He says He is. I thought I had a solid case, but to my surprise my case was only founded on my own ignorance..once the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, I saw how shallow my conclusions were, and I also saw the answers were always there, I just didn't see them.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity. Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. This to me represents the intellectual bankruptcy of the skeptics typical argumentation against Christianity. Skeptics never once consider that the obvious goodness, wisdom and purity of Jesus Christ is actually living proof that they've completely misunderstood the God of the Old Testament. They never consider it from that angle, and try to apply their understanding the other way.

But you don't fall under scenario 2. You just believe you fall under scenario 2. For you to be correct, you would have to know that an omnipotent being is what is revealing something to you. Nobody, not you, not us, can be certain that you are right about that. I can think of two ways you could be wrong: 1) you may suffer from a relatively common mental defect that causes people to be absolutely convinced they are communicating with a superior being; and 2) you are being contacted by a superior being, but you as a human are in no position verify that it is an omnipotent being, as any being significantly superior to you would appear omnipotent to you. In a nutshell, humans don't have perfect understanding of anything except systems they created themselves, such as mathematics and formal logic, so you can't testify that your understanding of your experience is perfect.

About 1), as I've said to you elsewhere on the Sift, I'm not suggesting it to be mean or insulting. It's a common condition, and people of all spiritual stances suffer from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity. If their accounts were consistent, then there'd appear to be something to it, but they're not. People who have these conditions don't even gravitate to the same religion, if any religion at all. For you to say you are right to the exclusion of all those other people who are equally convicted is arrogant. The same applies to your following arguments:

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective. There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

I'll elaborate on the other issue in the last paragraph.

This part, I get, but what I say above still stands. If one had no other evidence other than an experience like yours, it would make perfect sense for one to believe they had contact with the real God, and that what they were interpreting was exactly true. But there's other evidence: other people have had very similar experiences, often associated with mental injury (falling off a horse and going blind, for the most famous example), and they have come to a wide variety of conclusions based on their own (human) interpretation of the experience. This, to a rational person, should suggest that you may not be right, and that is enough.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one. There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God"

Again, I used to be the same way. I believed anyone advocating for supernatural claims had a screw loose. It seems that way on the outside, looking in. It isn't anything which you will understand or believe until God opens your eyes to see.

Is it possible that a superior being could fool quite a bit of the planet? Sure. Satan and his minions are doing just that. Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure. This is where my presupposition comes in. I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

>> ^messenger:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.
That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.
Do you believe there is a God?
It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.
Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.
Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.
And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.
Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.
It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.
>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.

Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did *and* didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.

The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?

God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.

>> ^heropsycho:

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to be true. That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that. Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful view of other people. You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how much you think you do. You don't. Period. Go ahead and try to convince them. There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions because they don't share yours.

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with certainty god doesn't exist either. So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated spirituality to being right or wrong. Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more valid because you're Christian.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side, here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the Christian Golden Rule?

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone. I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a petulant 5 year old know it all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.
A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.
Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.
I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.
How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?
For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.
Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did and didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.
The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?
God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.
>> ^heropsycho:

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to
be true.

I am commanded by God to do so. It's not optional.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that.

Okay..cool.

Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their
mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot
prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful
view of other people.

Again, I am commanded by God to do so. Although, in this case, I didn't start the conversation about God.

You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how
much you think you do. You don't. Period.

That's your opinion.
Go ahead and try to
convince them.

You can't argue someone into faith. Only God is capable of changing someones heart.

There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to
claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions
because they don't share yours.

Would it be immoral to tell a rapist that raping people is wrong?

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing
in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely
exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with
certainty god doesn't exist either

It doesn't really bother me. I agree though, it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; God gives everyone freedom to believe whatever they want. I also see everyone in the image of God. Neither am I interested in arguing; I prefer as little drama as possible.

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint
on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated
spirituality to being right or wrong.

Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs
wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to
yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't
in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and
always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all
your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Rather than drag it out, I am just going to let this drop. I fully acknowledge atheists have valid opinions on morality and ethics.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not
debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how
to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others.
You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is
messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more
valid because you're Christian.

Since you're preaching at me about how I should conduct myself, I think it's only fair that you share what you believe in. I think it's relevent, in that context, to see if your behavior lines up to the stanards of conduct of your faith.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their
beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side,
here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and
understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap
about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people
spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the
Christian Golden Rule?

As a previous unbeliever and skeptic, I am very familiar with what atheists believe and why. Not only from a personal standpoint, but due to the fact that they tell me exactly what they believe all the time. You're really working overtime trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (and not responding to the substance of the conversation), when the point of fact is, there is nothing wrong with my sharing what I believe. If you can tell me I am wrong, I can say that I am right. But I am not even saying that. I am saying God is right, and I believe Him.

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter
disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word
of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you
re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone.
I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other
devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than
not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an
irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a
believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like
your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a
petulant 5 year old know it all.

What have I said that is so terrible? I'm far from perfect but your accusations are ringing a little hollow. You could try putting away the strawmen and ad homs and actually engage the substance of the conversation. Do you think messanger needs you to defend him? He and I are in familiar territory. Honestly, I am sorry if I have been rude in any way. Though, how is it that you chastise someone about being respectful when you yourself are being disrespectful, anyway? I'm not sure I understand that dynamic.


>> ^heropsycho:

@shinyblurry

Two points I want to clarify:

... it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

As to demonstration:
How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

I'll address the rest of your content above in a later comment.

@shinyblurry

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

To say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement about your psychology. It has nothing to do with the question of Gods existence. Atheism, by definition, is a denial of any deity. When you describe your beliefs, you aren't talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. You are saying you don't know. The problem, and confusion begins when you take that a step further, and say you don't believe in God because you don't know. That doesn't logically follow. Does it make any logical sense to say that because I don't know if apple pie tastes any good, I don't believe it tastes good? Does it make sense to say that because I don't know if Howard is left handed, that I don't believe he is left handed? If not, then why does it make logical sense to say that because I don't know if God exists, that I don't believe He exists?

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God. You are not clearly neutral, since you are taking a negative position on God, and a negative position has a burden of proof.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

Your premise is faulty for a number of reasons. First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind, based on the fact that you had a break with reality and believed in something that wasn't true. I've given you an alternative explanation to your theory, which is that most people who claim to be having a genuine spiritual experience are having that experience. The question is, is it from a genuine source or are they being deliberately deceived?

You also presume that the reason people believe is because it makes them feel good. If all it were was a spiritual high, I wouldn't believe it either. My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do. God has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt that He is an absolute control of reality, down to the very atom, down to the mircosecond.

What I am saying to you is, God will provide the evidence that will convince your skeptical mind. He will provide the undeniable evidence that you could not interpret away. When you encounter the living God, you will walk away utterly changed, in every conceivable way, forever.

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

You brought up my atheism and then started defining it. I'm telling you you're defining it wrong. It's really on you to do the minimum research and Google "weak atheism" to find the definition before telling me I'm wrong.

About the apple pie and logic. You're twisting words around and not following logic at all. According to formal logic, the logical opposite of "I believe apple pie tastes good", is, "It is not the case that I believe apple pie tastes good." A person who didn't know if apple pie tasted good would be justified in making that statement. So, it is not the case that I believe God exists.

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God.

Not taking a firm 100% stance doesn't entail I have no opinion or guesses one way or the other. I may be suspending judgement until I feel I have sufficient evidence. My best guess is that the Biblical God doesn't exist. You still haven't given me a strong statement that I could possibly provide proof for. Find my words, quote them to me, and ask me to prove them. Don't just go claiming that I've taken a negative position.

First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind.

I certainly do not presume that. What I presume is that a. there are other people who have numinous experiences, b. they associate them with different religions, and c. they are just as sure they're real an accurate as you are. Do you disagree with any of those presumptions? I conclude logically from that that these people cannot all be correct in their interpretation. From that I conclude that it's possible you are one such person.

My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence.

Could you tell me what this evidence was besides the communication in your head that told you he's controlling every atom?

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do.

Name three things that only God can do. How do you know no other entities can do those things?

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

Been there, done that. Didn't work. Everybody in my family grew up with very strong faith. We prayed, went to church, sang in the choir, served as altar boys, did the readings, donated, attended Sunday school, received the Sacraments, studied the bible at home, and discussed the nature of God. My sister worked for a Christian organization. But none of us ever received any kind of signal that we were on the right track. Two of my sisters lost faith and left the church, then I did, then my other sister. My parents also slowed their attendance and even stopped going for a while. I've talked with them about it, and they varyingly say either they don't really believe any more, but the ritual feels good; or that it's "the right thing" to go to church. So, where was Jesus for my whole family? My parents have both given over 70 years to Jesus with not a peep back. I was faithful from birth until I noticed that I had never ever felt Jesus's presence and wondered if it was all fake. I don't remember what or how I asked, but I did ask Jesus to show himself. And that was when I actually believed in him. He didn't show himself, so I gradually lost faith, became comfortable with my lack of faith, and left the church.

I like to think of Jesus like a figure skater, who does interpretive dances about my life.