What if . . .

[DLH]

I dictate nothing.​

… but rather evolving.​

Except for living things, apparently.

All living things evolve.

 

[DLH]

You flatter yourself that you threaten anyone’s world view.

I see you and @steve_bank as cowardly ideologues that have to silence all dissent. Like wokism.

You promote it with a link in all your posts.

The Buddhist discourse of the Four Noble Truths by Ajahn Sumudu?

BASTARD! I am.

Atheism isn’t an ideology, it’s a lack of belief.

An ideology is a set of beliefs or values attributed to a person or group of persons.

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. (Source)

 

[steve_bank]

Atheistic science is common theme in Christian TV and radio.

DLH won't say if he rejects supernatural gods. Another closet deceptive Christian or theist of some ko9nd?

Pew poll on religion and scientists

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

Scientists are split roughly 50/50 between no belief at all and an belief in a god or higher power.


So which is it for you DLH, no gods, a higher power of some kind, or Yahweh? Being honest is up to you. It does not affect me.

I generally go with naturalism. Anything that exists is by definition natural, there can be no 'supernatural'. If a ghost exists and I see it then there is a causal link between my brain and the ghost even if I can not f deduce it.

God can not be proven or disproven.

You rail against atheist science ideologies. Ok, what should we occupy ourselves with? WEorshipng an imaginary god? Endless interrelation of the bible?

You say science does not interest you, that is a cop out. Actually learning science takes time and effort. IOW work. It is a lot easier to build a simplistic ideology such as yours.

One only has to repeat 'atheist science ideology' over and over and over. Li9e a religion.

For Christians it is 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus....'

Are you consumed by attacking atheist science ideology'? Are you on mission against it? Are you obsessed?

 

[DLH]

Atheistic science is common theme in Christian TV and radio.​

You seem obtuse? I'll say it again. I'm not Christian, never have been and never will be. BECAUSE Christianity was corrupted with apostacy and pagan myth especially from 325 CE with the influence of Constantine. Modern day Christianity isn't Christian. The JWs call it Christendom. The book of Revelation calls it the whore of Babylon.
​

DLH won't say if he rejects supernatural gods.​

I would read your posts more often, but I find the subject of myself to be boring. I reject some allegedly supernatural gods and not others.
​

Another closet deceptive Christian or theist of some ko9nd?​

Obtuse. Why in the fuck would you imagine I would need to put on a show for you? And what the hell difference does it make anyway?
​

Pew poll on religion and scientists

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

Scientists are split roughly 50/50 between no belief at all and an belief in a god or higher power.​

What effect would you imagine, in your delusion, that to have on science?
​

So which is it for you DLH, no gods, a higher power of some kind, or Yahweh? Being honest is up to you. It does not affect me.​

I'm sorry, but if you don't know that already I can't help you with it.
​

I generally go with naturalism. Anything that exists is by definition natural, there can be no 'supernatural'.​

What are colors, Steve? Does purple exist? Supernatural just means you don't know if it exists or not. Science can't test the supernatural so you have no scientific understanding of it. Whales and giant squid used to be supernatural.
​

If a ghost exists and I see it then there is a causal link between my brain and the ghost even if I can not f deduce it.​

Link? English is a Germanic language. Ghost is from the German word for spirit, geist. Zeitgeist, for example, spirit of the times. Poltergeist. Contextually you are referring to apparitions, which Biblically are demons (rebelious spirit beings) deceiving people like the "spirit" of Samuel summoned by the witch of Endor. Demonic deception is also incorporated in fortune telling, divination, etc. Crimes punishable by death in ancient Israel, according to the Law of Moses.
​

God can not be proven or disproven.​

God? You mean Jehovah God of the Bible, because God could also be a number of other gods. Zoom out beyond occidental cultural influence. In India God might be Brahma, in Japan it might be Amaterasu or any number of "8 million" or "countless" gods. Contextually the atheist Western thinking is limited and dogmatic.

Also, to be proven is overestimated by atheistic ideologues. You wisely say proven or disproven. To prove is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Demonstrate, determine, etc. The idea that to prove or disprove something means anything other than convince is somewhat delusional. If I read in the headlines that science had proven the existence of God I wouldn't be impressed or even optimistic about that, in fact I would most likely find their logic, science, argument, wanting. Proof or disproof isn't often infallible, irrefutable conclusion as it is often presented by the aforementioned ideologues.
​

You rail against atheist science ideologies. Ok, what should we occupy ourselves with?​

Something other than me, perhaps, and what I believe? We are discussing ideas here. I don't care who's they are. My ideas aren't any more or less valid to me just because they're mine. I'm often wrong and correct myself. It's not often quick or easy, but I eventually wise up.
​

WEorshipng an imaginary god? Endless interrelation of the bible?​

Goddamn me! I must stop this Tomfoolery, this ballyhoo. Get in line with these men of science, who after all, realized in 1986 that babies should be anesthetized during surgery.

You and I needn't dictate to one another how to think when sharing ideas, no?
​

You say science does not interest you, that is a cop out.​

No, it's a fact. Auto mechanics doesn't interest me either. Carpentry. It isn't that I'm ideologically opposed to those things, just like, believe it or not, most atheists aren't ideologically opposed to theism.


​

Actually learning science takes time and effort. IOW work. It is a lot easier to build a simplistic ideology such as yours.​

Oh, I am impressed, then! God just disappeared in a puff of your own logic like a fart in a whirlwind with equal effort on your part, I might add. Congratulations. Now, get on with your life. I feel absolutely safe in assuming that your engineering mind has devoted less thought to science than mine has theology. I can read this in your words. Listen, you do you, I'll do me. It isn't a contest pitting apples and oranges.
​

One only has to repeat 'atheist science ideology' over and over and over. Li9e a religion.

For Christians it is 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus....'​

Jesus said, why do you call me good? No one is good except God.
​

Are you consumed by attacking atheist science ideology'? Are you on mission against it? Are you obsessed?​

You don't see the irony there, do you?​

 

[southernhybrid]

What if......you all stopped posting in this idiotic thread? Just asking for a friend.....

 

[pood]

I dictate nothing.​

… but rather evolving.​

Except for living things, apparently.

All living things evolve.

And yet in another post you dismissed evolution as nonsense. Yet another example of your egregious double talking.

 

[pood]

You flatter yourself that you threaten anyone’s world view.

I see you and @steve_bank as cowardly ideologues that have to silence all dissent. Like wokism.

You see wrong, as always. No surprise there.

You promote it with a link in all your posts.

The Buddhist discourse of the Four Noble Truths by Ajahn Sumudu?

BASTARD! I am.

Whatever. Just more juvenile gobbledygook.

Atheism isn’t an ideology, it’s a lack of belief.

An ideology is a set of beliefs or values attributed to a person or group of persons.

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. (Source)

Whatever. Doesn’t address what I wrote.

 

[DLH]

You see wrong, as always. No surprise there.

I didn't get the memo. That you were the arbiter of the subjective in the name of objectivity. No ideology there.

 

[DLH]

And yet in another post you dismissed evolution as nonsense. Yet another example of your egregious double talking.

Macroevolution. Not being particularly ideologically fixated I don't have to dismiss one with the other in the name of science.

 

[DLH]

What if......you all stopped posting in this idiotic thread? Just asking for a friend.....

Not sure if there is a subtle inside reference to the group think, but am I to understand that this friend of yours doesn't just abstain from participating in the thread but objects to the mere presence of it?

It's just so silly, like infidelity differs from religion in some way.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH says Christians are corrupted apostates, that implies he believes in something that is true and uncorupted, but will not say what that is.

He said Yahweh is his god, but will not say if he believes in or rejects gods.

As part of his ideology he repeatedly uses the words atheist and science, without comprehension of what they mean. Rigid ideologues rduuce things to simple labels repeating the labels over and over


He may be a lone bible believer with his own interpretation, I have met a few.

BLH is one of several bloviating anti atheists who have passed through the forum. Interesting to a point, thenbhecokess boring and repetitive.

I don’t know who his target audience is and what he is trying to accomplish. His posts have about as much effect on me as a Christian preaching the gospels, none.

 

[pood]

I don’t know who his target audience is and what he is trying to accomplish. His posts have about as much effect on me as a Christian preaching the gospels, none.

Jehovah’s Witness.

 

[steve_bank]

I don’t know who his target audience is and what he is trying to accomplish. His posts have about as much effect on me as a Christian preaching the gospels, none.

Jehovah’s Witness.

Thanks, I missed that post of his. That says it all.

Interesting twist, the bible is fallible interpretation of the infallible god. More creative apologetics.

The question is then if the bible is fallible how does one know what god wants.

I don't know much about JW theology details. I remember them going door to door when I was a kid. In the 80s I hung out with a guy who was shunned by his JW community he grew up in.

 

[pood]

I don’t know who his target audience is and what he is trying to accomplish. His posts have about as much effect on me as a Christian preaching the gospels, none.

Jehovah’s Witness.

Thanks, I missed that post of his. That says it all.

Interesting twist, the bible is fallible interpretation of the infallible god. More creative apologetics.

Just think about that. An infallible god can’t infallibly tell people what he wants.

 

[pood]

Macroevolution

As previously noted, macroevolution is supported by the fossil record, molecular biology, and by direct observation. I see you ignored the link I gave you to observed instances of macroevolution, as well as to my point that it should be gob-smackingly obvious to anyone who gives it three seconds of thought that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution must also be true, because as microevolutionary changes accrue over time, macro changes are obviously inevitable.

 

[steve_bank]

If you go by bible derived creation time lines staring with Noah all the diversity in human genetics and culture would have had to develop very quickly. Almost overnight.

It would be like white parents having kids with black African features with no history of intermarriage in the blood line.

BLH says adamantly he is not Christianity m but JW is just another variation variation iof Chrtianity.

As I was taught in Catholic schools the RCC still claims to be the one and only true Christian church. Just cation is the popes arer a line that go back to Peer as the frt bishop of Rome.

I just realized something. The gospel 'thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church' served a political and power purpose.

 

[bilby]

Macroevolution

As previously noted, macroevolution is supported by the fossil record, molecular biology, and by direct observation. I see you ignored the link I gave you to observed instances of macroevolution, as well as to my point that it should be gob-smackingly obvious to anyone who gives it three seconds of thought that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution must also be true, because as microevolutionary changes accrue over time, macro changes are obviously inevitable.

Believing that microevolution happens, but macro evolution doesn't, is like believing that it's possible to count from 1 to 10, but impossible to count from 1 to 10,000.

 

[DBT]

I dictate nothing.​

I'm always on about ideology. To the point of being tired of it, but I see it as a tarnish of sorts of everything. A sort of tyranny produced by ego, mostly. The man who coined the term called it the science of ideas. That's good, but I prefer it as the study of ideas. Wikipedia gives the etymology as: The term ideology originates from French idéologie, itself coined from combining Greek: idéā (ἰδέα, 'notion, pattern'; close to the Lockean sense of idea) and -logíā (-λογῐ́ᾱ, 'the study of'). Scientia (Latin knowledge).

I see things concretely. In a practical sense. Definitive and conclusive doesn't imply, to me, stagnant, but rather evolving. Concrete is rigid temporally but disintegrating. Like everything, there is good and bad facets and aspects of it. Words have definitions, meanings and etymologies. The reasons behind words evolve. They have history. So does knowledge. Knowledge can become stagnant, dogmatic. Science explores or examines, investigates. I would explain ideology as an idea that has become stagnant and upheld as dogmatic. Tyrannical.

I always scratch my head at the fundamentalist science minded militant atheistic perspective on science and faith. It seems science is a crutch to them. Dogmatic. And faith is satanic (adversarial) to their world view. They are vulnerable, it seems, to the possibility of being wrong since their "knowledge" or ideas of the world around them are fragile or evolving.

It seems to me that you are saying this is what faith is meant to be so your faith makes you this and there's no other explanation regardless of how poorly constructed your understanding on the subject might or might not be. You dictate.
​

There are people who believe in things that are not supported by evidence, be it ideology, politics, religion or just winning the lottery this Saturday, it happens, and in this instance 'faith' is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.​

I often use the Latin word credit, which means believer. From that word comes credible, credentials, credulity, incredible, credibility. I often find it necessary to define evidence as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Most everything has evidence for and against it. Evidence is argument. Evidence and faith can be, but are not necessarily blind. One man's evidence of evolution can be another man's evidence of creation. Natura naturata.

To say that anything exists without the support of evidence seems to me odd. It's as if saying evidence dictates my reality rather than reality dictating my evidence. This, it must be agreed, is infallible truth because of the evidence I accept or conclude with, in agreement with these credible sources. It just seems - desperate?

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, there is no justification to believe that it does exist. If it's something possible but hidden and evidence comes to light, that is the point of justification for a conviction.​

You are taking faith into the realm of what is assumed to be true? They call it faith, credit, credential, for a reason. It's trust, confidence. Paul's definition you may be familiar with? "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) When it comes to God everyone, whether atheist or theist is agnostic in the sense that they don't know.

Science is built on systematic observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning. But faith - not as blind belief, but as a kind of trust. Scientists have to trust that the universe is orderly and consistent, that patterns they observe today will hold tomorrow. That’s not something you can prove with a single experiment; it’s an assumption, a working faith in what’s called the uniformity of nature. Without it, the whole scientific method would collapse - you’d never be confident that gravity won’t just switch off next Tuesday.

Then there’s faith in the process itself. Scientists trust that rigorous testing, peer review, and replication will eventually sift truth from noise, even if it’s messy along the way. Think about how many times a hypothesis gets tweaked or tossed out - yet they keep going, trusting the system will refine our understanding over time. That’s not knowledge in the moment; it’s faith in a method.

And on a personal level, scientists often lean on a kind of intuitive faith - call it a hunch - when picking what to study. There’s no guarantee a theory will pan out, but they trust their instincts and dive in anyway. Einstein’s pursuit of relativity started with a gut feeling about how space and time should fit together, long before the math and evidence caught up.

So, faith in science isn’t about abandoning evidence for dogma. It’s trust acting as a scaffold - holding things steady where knowledge hasn’t yet solidified. The trick is, that scaffold gets replaced with data as soon as possible. Faith keeps the engine running; science fuels it.

Intuition, speculation or hypothesis is not the same as firm conviction in things that lack evidence, such believing in the bible, its god and the miracles described in it. Or the Quran and Mohammad as the true prophet, etc

That is not the same as proposing the existence of a Higgs particle or string theory, the many worlds interpretation and so on.

There is no emotional attachment to speculation, it's not a firm conviction of truth without evidence.

You can speculate, hypothesise or imagine whatever you like without forming a conviction where what you imagine is in fact true.

You try to equivocate several different things in an attempt to justify faith, which, given that it's context that defines the word faith, where believing in supernatural things, God, gods, that have no evidence, faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Just think about that. An infallible god can’t infallibly tell people what he wants.

But of course, he still desires a loving relationship with these poorly informed humans of his, and will burn them like ants if they can't follow DLH through the rabbit holes of seeking TRUTH. Yeah, that sounds like a plausible setup. I guess when this god throws the discarded ones who didn't study with DLH into the flames, to be burned like chaff (as Junior says) he'll say to them: "See what I just did there?"

 

[DLH]

But of course, he still desires a loving relationship with these poorly informed humans of his, and will burn them like ants if they can't follow DLH through the rabbit holes of seeking TRUTH. Yeah, that sounds like a plausible setup. I guess when this god throws the discarded ones who didn't study with DLH into the flames, to be burned like chaff (as Junior says) he'll say to them: "See what I just did there?"

Hell isn't a Bible teaching. The metaphorical burning of chaff, lake of fire etc. is symbolic for everlasting destruction. Those who accept Jehovah and his purpose have the possibility of resurrection to life everlasting in paradise Earth once Satan, his demons, and the world are destroyed. In effect, the unbeliever suffers the fate he thinks will befall him if there were no God. Death.