Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DBT]

It's not what 'someone tries to say' but what the verses themselves happen to say...which clearly state the penalty for not not believing, for not having faith.

''He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.'' Mark 16

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

A clear case of carrot and stick, either reward or a threat of eternal damnation simply on the basis of faith (a poor tool for sorting fact from fiction.)

You bring up a good point, as do others. What is difficult to grasp for many is that, similar to the Qur'an, the bible is speaking of those who are religious on some level, not those who have no knowledge of God through ignorance.

There is only one unforgivable sin. That is blasphemy.

Those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD.

Those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions.

Hell, and heaven are for a prescribed time, and not eternal. (Now; if someone wants to say that I refute what is written in the Bible, that's about as close of an instance as they will get.)

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

See, you are constantly shifting the goal posts, making up your own narrative and ignoring what the text in the bible, Quran, Gita, Vedas actually tell us.

I provided verses that clearly state that those who ''believeth not'' are condemned. In other words, non believers are condemned because they do not believe...which has nothing whatsoever with your own interpretation that - ''those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD'' and ''those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions''

What you persistently claim is contrary to what the bible is telling us and what the Quran telling us.

This is not me 'trying to tell you something' but what the actual verses are telling us....which you duly ignore and offer your own version. A version that is not supported by what the Bible tells us, or what the Quran tells us.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You bring up a good point, as do others. What is difficult to grasp for many is that, similar to the Qur'an, the bible is speaking of those who are religious on some level, not those who have no knowledge of God through ignorance.

There is only one unforgivable sin. That is blasphemy.

Those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD.

Those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions.

Hell, and heaven are for a prescribed time, and not eternal. (Now; if someone wants to say that I refute what is written in the Bible, that's about as close of an instance as they will get.)

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

See, you are constantly shifting the goal posts, making up your own narrative and ignoring what the text in the bible, Quran, Gita, Vedas actually tell us.

I provided verses that clearly state that those who ''believeth not'' are condemned. In other words, non believers are condemned because they do not believe...which has nothing whatsoever with your own interpretation that - ''those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD'' and ''those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions''

What you persistently claim is contrary to what the bible is telling us and what the Quran telling us.

This is not me 'trying to tell you something' but what the actual verses are telling us....which you duly ignore and offer your own version. A version that is not supported by what the Bible tells us, or what the Quran tells us.

That is simply not true. I would say to read the verses within their context, and to think of to whom the bible and Qur'an are written for but that seems too difficult for you to grasp evidently so I will ask you a single question.

Was Christ speaking to believers or atheists?

Okay, two really similar questions.

Was the Quran intended to guide the faithful or those who are ignorant.

Both books in entirety are meant for those who wish to be faithful into GOD. Everything that is in them is a guidance for those same.

It is really silly and down right foolish to think that the Holy books were meant for those who don't believe in GOD.

There are many verses and whole chapters devoted to the ignorant and their placement and the basis of their judgement.

What you are trying to get at is equivalent to a scientific paper being written for the laymen as opposed to the scientific community. It just isn't the case.

I am being sincere; please, if you really read what it is you are quoting within context and without preconceptions you will know that they are a guidance for those who though possible way off the path, still strive for what is right by God's will.

It will take me some time, but it is worth it. When I do have the time I will try to back what I say with quoted scripture within context. This will be done through my personal reading of said books. Not by using Google to find things that other biased people have found to suit their motives. Since I have only read these books for about a year and haven't memorized specific placement of the things I need to produce to back my claims, it may take quite some time. Both books are quite long.

Really, the Gita, I would think, doesn't need to be included in this to back my claim. Most here seem to have a problem with abrahamic Faith in particular.

If you like; I will find backing for what I know.

Just let me know if it is necessary.

Thank you humbly, and sincerely,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[bilby]

See, you are constantly shifting the goal posts, making up your own narrative and ignoring what the text in the bible, Quran, Gita, Vedas actually tell us.

I provided verses that clearly state that those who ''believeth not'' are condemned. In other words, non believers are condemned because they do not believe...which has nothing whatsoever with your own interpretation that - ''those who know not of GOD cannot blaspheme GOD'' and ''those who do not know of GOD or it's will for man will not be unjustly punished for their lack of belief, but will be weighed against their actions''

What you persistently claim is contrary to what the bible is telling us and what the Quran telling us.

This is not me 'trying to tell you something' but what the actual verses are telling us....which you duly ignore and offer your own version. A version that is not supported by what the Bible tells us, or what the Quran tells us.

That is simply not true. I would say to read the verses within their context, and to think of to whom the bible and Qur'an are written for but that seems too difficult for you to grasp evidently so I will ask you a single question.

Was Christ speaking to believers or atheists?

Okay, two really similar questions.

Was the Quran intended to guide the faithful or those who are ignorant.

Both books in entirety are meant for those who wish to be faithful into GOD. Everything that is in them is a guidance for those same.

It is really silly and down right foolish to think that the Holy books were meant for those who don't believe in GOD.

There are many verses and whole chapters devoted to the ignorant and their placement and the basis of their judgement.

What you are trying to get at is equivalent to a scientific paper being written for the laymen as opposed to the scientific community. It just isn't the case.

I am being sincere; please, if you really read what it is you are quoting within context and without preconceptions you will know that they are a guidance for those who though possible way off the path, still strive for what is right by God's will.

It will take me some time, but it is worth it. When I do have the time I will try to back what I say with quoted scripture within context. This will be done through my personal reading of said books. Not by using Google to find things that other biased people have found to suit their motives. Since I have only read these books for about a year and haven't memorized specific placement of the things I need to produce to back my claims, it may take quite some time. Both books are quite long.

Really, the Gita, I would think, doesn't need to be included in this to back my claim. Most here seem to have a problem with abrahamic Faith in particular.

If you like; I will find backing for what I know.

Just let me know if it is necessary.

Thank you humbly, and sincerely,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

So in other words, in order to believe, first you must believe.

Or, put another way, unless you are indoctrinated before you are old enough to reason, you have no possible motive to take any of this nonsense seriously.

 

[DBT]

That is simply not true. I would say to read the verses within their context, and to think of to whom the bible and Qur'an are written for but that seems too difficult for you to grasp evidently so I will ask you a single question.

Was Christ speaking to believers or atheists?

The context of the given verses relate directly to the status of non believers in relation to the teaching of the New Testament or Quran and attributed to to the will of God, Jesus or Muhammad.

They instruct the faithful (or any reader) on the position of non believers in the eyes of the Creator according to the authors of the text.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Check out the Yajur Veda, Prapathaka V

Which of the books? Prapathaka just means "chapter" (literally, "lesson"). Each book is divided into chapters. Every book has a chapter/lesson 5.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is simply not true. I would say to read the verses within their context, and to think of to whom the bible and Qur'an are written for but that seems too difficult for you to grasp evidently so I will ask you a single question.

Was Christ speaking to believers or atheists?

The context of the given verses relate directly to the status of non believers in relation to the teaching of the New Testament or Quran and attributed to to the will of God, Jesus or Muhammad.

They instruct the faithful (or any reader) on the position of non believers in the eyes of the Creator according to the authors of the text.

You are conflating non believer with atheist.

It refers to those willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is simply not true. I would say to read the verses within their context, and to think of to whom the bible and Qur'an are written for but that seems too difficult for you to grasp evidently so I will ask you a single question.

Was Christ speaking to believers or atheists?

Okay, two really similar questions.

Was the Quran intended to guide the faithful or those who are ignorant.

Both books in entirety are meant for those who wish to be faithful into GOD. Everything that is in them is a guidance for those same.

It is really silly and down right foolish to think that the Holy books were meant for those who don't believe in GOD.

There are many verses and whole chapters devoted to the ignorant and their placement and the basis of their judgement.

What you are trying to get at is equivalent to a scientific paper being written for the laymen as opposed to the scientific community. It just isn't the case.

I am being sincere; please, if you really read what it is you are quoting within context and without preconceptions you will know that they are a guidance for those who though possible way off the path, still strive for what is right by God's will.

It will take me some time, but it is worth it. When I do have the time I will try to back what I say with quoted scripture within context. This will be done through my personal reading of said books. Not by using Google to find things that other biased people have found to suit their motives. Since I have only read these books for about a year and haven't memorized specific placement of the things I need to produce to back my claims, it may take quite some time. Both books are quite long.

Really, the Gita, I would think, doesn't need to be included in this to back my claim. Most here seem to have a problem with abrahamic Faith in particular.

If you like; I will find backing for what I know.

Just let me know if it is necessary.

Thank you humbly, and sincerely,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

So in other words, in order to believe, first you must believe.

Or, put another way, unless you are indoctrinated before you are old enough to reason, you have no possible motive to take any of this nonsense seriously.

I was never indoctrinated.

In fact I am still not a member of any church.

I never read any scripture and was an atheist for the majority of my life from early childhood up until 2011.

So no, indoctrination, nor Faith is needed for initial salvation.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So in other words, in order to believe, first you must believe.

Or, put another way, unless you are indoctrinated before you are old enough to reason, you have no possible motive to take any of this nonsense seriously.

I was never indoctrinated.

In fact I am still not a member of any church.

I never read any scripture and was an atheist for the majority of my life from early childhood up until 2011.

So no, indoctrination, nor Faith is needed for initial salvation.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You could still have been indoctrinated. We're all indoctrinated with something. Just stuff that float about in your culture and which gets constantly re-enforced. Some of these things are factually wrong. The belief just hangs around because nobody questions it.

An example is atheism is Sweden. I don't know how many times I have heard, while joking in the break-room, being religious is equated with being an idiot. The religious person is an archetype of people holding false beliefs purely out of ignorance. It's a safe target for a joke because we all know that anybody listening will (most likely) also be an atheist. So atheism gets constantly re-enforced. I can't imagine how it must feel to be religious in these parts. This is indoctrination. This is the mechanic of it.

If you've grown up in a culture where most people believe something you can bet that you've been indoctrinated with those beliefs on some level. It's not cool indoctrinating others, but it happens and it's everywhere.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I was never indoctrinated.

In fact I am still not a member of any church.

I never read any scripture and was an atheist for the majority of my life from early childhood up until 2011.

So no, indoctrination, nor Faith is needed for initial salvation.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

You could still have been indoctrinated. We're all indoctrinated with something. Just stuff that float about in your culture and which gets constantly re-enforced. Some of these things are factually wrong. The belief just hangs around because nobody questions it.

An example is atheism is Sweden. I don't know how many times I have heard, while joking in the break-room, being religious is equated with being an idiot. The religious person is an archetype of people holding false beliefs purely out of ignorance. It's a safe target for a joke because we all know that anybody listening will (most likely) also be an atheist. So atheism gets constantly re-enforced. I can't imagine how it must feel to be religious in these parts. This is indoctrination. This is the mechanic of it.

If you've grown up in a culture where most people believe something you can bet that you've been indoctrinated with those beliefs on some level. It's not cool indoctrinating others, but it happens and it's everywhere.

What a load of shit.

What didn't you understand about "I was atheist for over 20 years.

I actually attended a private Christian school up until bout mid first grade.

What you claim would be indoctrination was what set the cog wheels rolling towards atheism initially.

I agree that most look to fit in and will adapt to whatever status quo in order to do so. But not me. I've never even attempted to fit in or belong. It never mattered to me, and never will.

In fact, the fad of atheism is due to others wanting to be trendy in most cases. So your statement is true for some I suppose.

Let me put it differently;

I haven't ever been around any group of people in order to be indoctrinated into any particular school of thought. Throughout my life I have always made my conclusions based on my personal experiences and observations. Not those told to me by people I never trusted in the first place.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You could still have been indoctrinated. We're all indoctrinated with something. Just stuff that float about in your culture and which gets constantly re-enforced. Some of these things are factually wrong. The belief just hangs around because nobody questions it.

An example is atheism is Sweden. I don't know how many times I have heard, while joking in the break-room, being religious is equated with being an idiot. The religious person is an archetype of people holding false beliefs purely out of ignorance. It's a safe target for a joke because we all know that anybody listening will (most likely) also be an atheist. So atheism gets constantly re-enforced. I can't imagine how it must feel to be religious in these parts. This is indoctrination. This is the mechanic of it.

If you've grown up in a culture where most people believe something you can bet that you've been indoctrinated with those beliefs on some level. It's not cool indoctrinating others, but it happens and it's everywhere.

What a load of shit.

What didn't you understand about "I was atheist for over 20 years.

I actually attended a private Christian school up until bout mid first grade.

What you claim would be indoctrination was what set the cog wheels rolling towards atheism initially.

I agree that most look to fit in and will adapt to whatever status quo in order to do so. But not me. I've never even attempted to fit in or belong. It never mattered to me, and never will.

In fact, the fad of atheism is due to others wanting to be trendy in most cases. So your statement is true for some I suppose.

Let me put it differently;

The fact that you were an atheist for 20 years doesn't disprove it. There's such a thing as cognitive dissonance. You could have been indoctrinated as a child with theistic ideas become an atheist and then it felt wrong somehow. And not until you returned to the faith of your childhood did it feel right. Who the fuck knows?

Me personally I used to make fun of theists because belief in God is so ridiculous. But then I ransacked myself and realized that I'm not an atheist for any rational reasons. I'm an atheists because it just feels right. My atheist "faith" is about as flimsy and unsupported as any theists faith. I think that's true for any of us. Only an atheist raised in a religious environment is in any position to pat themselves on the back for their atheism. I don't know whether my atheism is the result of indoctrination or because it is true. I have no way of ever knowing.

But I can tell you the first time I came into contact with the idea of God. I was an adult. Sure, in school we'd been told about God. But I never really grasped what was going on. None of the teachers got into the theology of it, and nobody took their time to explain it, and I didn't care enough to ask. I remember asking my dad about God. And he just said "God is whatever you want it to be". Which is a brilliant answer btw. But he then changed the subject. At some point I went digging. And I was in literal disbelief. I could not believe anybody could seriously believe something this retarded. So I kept trying to find the real explanation. Remember that I had no theists to ask. At some point somebody invented the Internet and I came into contact with religious people. And yes, it was just as retarded as that first time I'd read about God. I'm still in a little bit of disbelief that there actually exists theists out there who takes this shit seriously. Even intelligent people. I still haven't been able to make that work in my mind. Belief in God is just too ridiculous.

I haven't ever been around any group of people in order to be indoctrinated into any particular school of thought. Throughout my life I have always made my conclusions based on my personal experiences and observations. Not those told to me by people I never trusted in the first place.

I think this is bullshit. There must have been somebody you looked up to who had forceful opinions on stuff? No teacher in school?

 

[popsthebuilder]

What a load of shit.

What didn't you understand about "I was atheist for over 20 years.

I actually attended a private Christian school up until bout mid first grade.

What you claim would be indoctrination was what set the cog wheels rolling towards atheism initially.

I agree that most look to fit in and will adapt to whatever status quo in order to do so. But not me. I've never even attempted to fit in or belong. It never mattered to me, and never will.

In fact, the fad of atheism is due to others wanting to be trendy in most cases. So your statement is true for some I suppose.

Let me put it differently;

The fact that you were an atheist for 20 years doesn't disprove it. There's such a thing as cognitive dissonance. You could have been indoctrinated as a child with theistic ideas become an atheist and then it felt wrong somehow. And not until you returned to the faith of your childhood did it feel right. Who the fuck knows?

Me personally I used to make fun of theists because belief in God is so ridiculous. But then I ransacked myself and realized that I'm not an atheist for any rational reasons. I'm an atheists because it just feels right. My atheist "faith" is about as flimsy and unsupported as any theists faith. I think that's true for any of us. Only an atheist raised in a religious environment is in any position to pat themselves on the back for their atheism. I don't know whether my atheism is the result of indoctrination or because it is true. I have no way of ever knowing.

I haven't ever been around any group of people in order to be indoctrinated into any particular school of thought. Throughout my life I have always made my conclusions based on my personal experiences and observations. Not those told to me by people I never trusted in the first place.

I think this is bullshit. There must have been somebody you looked up to who had forceful opinions on stuff? No teacher in school?

I recall having respect for a couple of my teachers. Neither of which ever mentioned Faith or otherwise showed such in any way shape or form.

My Faith is a result of a few things. It does not coincide with what I did not believe as a child, however. I did not revert to something I never had any knowledge of. What I know was shown to me. Not by a man. And it wasn't shown to me with any division or particular preconception of what God is or isn't in terms of names given it by man.

You would be on to something if I fell into the teachings that I absorbed in kindergarten prior to switching to a public school, but that isn't the case.

I did look up to someone as a child or whatever. He was dead though. Not sure Bruce Lee was a Christian though. Never even wondered about it until now.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I recall having respect for a couple of my teachers. Neither of which ever mentioned Faith or otherwise showed such in any way shape or form.

My Faith is a result of a few things. It does not coincide with what I did not believe as a child, however. I did not revert to something I never had any knowledge of. What I know was shown to me. Not by a man. And it wasn't shown to me with any division or particular preconception of what God is or isn't in terms of names given it by man.

You would be on to something if I fell into the teachings that I absorbed in kindergarten prior to switching to a public school, but that isn't the case.

I did look up to someone as a child or whatever. He was dead though. Not sure Bruce Lee was a Christian though. Never even wondered about it until now.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

But you do, in the widest sense, belong to a faith similar to that you grew up with? What I mean is, opened you to the possibility that magic exists? Something beyond our material universe transcending it all?

What type of magical being is less interesting to me. It's just the fact that somebody has gone, "yeah, that makes sense" blows my mind. I have no ability to put myself in the shoes of somebody who thinks like that. It's just beyond any dimension I'm used to operating at mentally.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Based on observation I think the road towards atheism is one way. Once you've been "converted" there's no God I don't think there's any going back. I think those who claim they were once atheists and now are theists never understood either atheism or theism to begin with. I believe the theist seed must have been taken root way before your atheist period, or I just can't see how you could de-convert?

Since we are social creatures we do affect each other and re-enforce prior beliefs. That's why I believe a culture/country turning atheism is certainly one way. The arguments for theism are so extraordinarily weak that they have no chance convincing anybody in an atheistic society. The omnipotence paradoxes are real. They really are unsolved problems that rationally minded theists have to solve before theism is even an option. And as we know, theists aren't even close to solving them. The ancient Greeks managed to demonstrate how omnipotence was bullshit (ca 300 BC) even before the Jews had invented monotheism. (ca 50 BC). That's what makes atheistic societies bulletproof to theism. As long as atheism keeps being re-enforced, there's just no way for theism to take hold.

I'm aware of the obvious fact that you disagree. Your experience is another. So you really don't need to argue your position. I'm just trying to explain (to myself) why I believe what I believe. Yes, I'm also aware that this may come across as arrogant. I even think I'm coming across as a bit of an arrogant ass now. Just putting it out there.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I recall having respect for a couple of my teachers. Neither of which ever mentioned Faith or otherwise showed such in any way shape or form.

My Faith is a result of a few things. It does not coincide with what I did not believe as a child, however. I did not revert to something I never had any knowledge of. What I know was shown to me. Not by a man. And it wasn't shown to me with any division or particular preconception of what God is or isn't in terms of names given it by man.

You would be on to something if I fell into the teachings that I absorbed in kindergarten prior to switching to a public school, but that isn't the case.

I did look up to someone as a child or whatever. He was dead though. Not sure Bruce Lee was a Christian though. Never even wondered about it until now.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

But you do, in the widest sense, belong to a faith similar to that you grew up with? What I mean is, opened you to the possibility that magic exists? Something beyond our material universe transcending it all?

What type of magical being is less interesting to me. It's just the fact that somebody has gone, "yeah, that makes sense" blows my mind. I have no ability to put myself in the shoes of somebody who thinks like that. It's just beyond any dimension I'm used to operating at mentally.

I don't belong to anything. My Faith is a product of things I have witnessed personally. GOD, the One Creator GOD that I have faith in isn't based on any book or indoctrination. It is based on what was shown to me, not by man, or the writings of man inspired by GOD. I don't divide the faithful of GOD so There are similarities to religions in ways.

I don't really appreciate you saying I didn't understand atheism. It is lack of belief in GOD. I contemplated and concluded there was no God at a very early age. For over twenty years my opinions changed some but my skepticism in a higher power did not. Organized religion has little to do with GOD. I did not understand that while I was an atheist. I just figured God must not be real because all the religious folk seems fake. I thought there can't be a God if there is so much pain in the world. I vaguely remember wondering to myself; of we have fossils of dinosaurs,but Adam was around since the beginning then why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible.

There is no doubt to me that it would be difficult for an atheist to become a theist based on observation of flawed religions. It would be difficult if one believes in survival of the fittest yet is still greedy.

But the concept is solid; cause and effect.

Nothing can't create or form anything whatsoever.

Therefore something created existence in some form.

To be honest; I would most likely be an atheist still of I wasn't saved on some very personal, irrefutable, life changing manner by the grace and mercy of GOD.

Real shit.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't belong to anything. My Faith is a product of things I have witnessed personally. GOD, the One Creator GOD that I have faith in isn't based on any book or indoctrination. It is based on what was shown to me, not by man, or the writings of man inspired by GOD. I don't divide the faithful of GOD so There are similarities to religions in ways.

What did he show you and how did you differentiate it from a potential false positive on your part?

Additionally, why do you feel he showed you? He didn't show me and he didn't show lots of other people. There are hundreds of millions of atheists and other forms of non-believers in the world who have heard the Word of God (or whatever you'd like to call it) and found it lacking in evidentiary support. According to you, we are all in for a lengthy bout of torture in the afterlife because of this. As I understand what you've been saying, you were in a similar position until God decided to directly intervene in your life and provide you with some very personal, irrefutable and life changing additional evidence of his existence, which allows you to avoid this.

For an omnipotent being, simultaneously personally tailoring several hundred million individually-styled, irrefutable pieces of evidence would require no more difficulty or level of energy expenditure than doing for one person. What do you feel his rationale behind doing it piecemeal instead was?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't belong to anything. My Faith is a product of things I have witnessed personally. GOD, the One Creator GOD that I have faith in isn't based on any book or indoctrination. It is based on what was shown to me, not by man, or the writings of man inspired by GOD. I don't divide the faithful of GOD so There are similarities to religions in ways.

I don't deny that you have seen God.... sorry. GOD. I have seen GOD as well. Once when I was high on acid. I've also seen GOD several times while meditating. Why do I claim that I have seen GOD? Because my experiences neatly match the experiences theists describe. Just like them I said, "that was pretty fucking cool, I want to learn more". But what makes me different, by learning more I mean reading about the science of perception and neurology. It turns out that religious experiences are nothing special. We (science) knows exactly what is going on and why you saw what you saw. We're all able to see anything at all. No limit. Especially if we already have a certain belief. That's where my suspicion regarding your indoctrination comes in.

Mystical experiences are quite easy for science to explain. There's tonnes of books written on it. Which is why it's so odd, that today, anybody taking anything from any "holy" book literally. Especially since even the basic theory underlying omnipotence/unmoved mover is so incredibly broken.

Unless we can measure it in a lab, or there's some sort of theory backed up by mathematical proofs, there's no reason to believe it's real. And denying this is argument from ignorance.

I'm sorry. But if you care about what is true, the road toward it is science. I'm not saying that science can give us all the answers and if science can't prove it it's worthless. I'm not saying that at all. But unless you can back it up at least partly with science there's no reason to give any of it any credence. It's just another one of those "wouldn't it be cool if.." scenarios. Fun as a diversion at a dinner party. But nothing anybody should arrange their lives around.

I don't really appreciate you saying I didn't understand atheism. It is lack of belief in GOD. I contemplated and concluded there was no God at a very early age. For over twenty years my opinions changed some but my skepticism in a higher power did not. Organized religion has little to do with GOD. I did not understand that while I was an atheist. I just figured God must not be real because all the religious folk seems fake. I thought there can't be a God if there is so much pain in the world. I vaguely remember wondering to myself; of we have fossils of dinosaurs,but Adam was around since the beginning then why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible.

There is no doubt to me that it would be difficult for an atheist to become a theist based on observation of flawed religions. It would be difficult if one believes in survival of the fittest yet is still greedy.

But the concept is solid; cause and effect.

Nothing can't create or form anything whatsoever.

Therefore something created existence in some form.

To be honest; I would most likely be an atheist still of I wasn't saved on some very personal, irrefutable, life changing manner by the grace and mercy of GOD.

Real shit.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

There you have it. You just walked us through what it was all about. Let me interpret this in my language:

1) You're taught about God and God's existence in a religious framework.
2) You think religions are bullshit. So you become an atheist.
3) You realize that you can believe in God without being a member of a church.
4) You have a religious experience and became convinced of God's existence.

To me this looks like you believed in God all along. You just didn't want to admit that as long as you thought that required membership of a church.

I'm aware you don't agree. So there's no need to argue against this. Of course your religious experience is refutable. Humans senses and human brains are flawed. Unless you at least have a couple of people who shared the same experience, and you can compare notes, then the truth of it is questionable.

You should read up on witness psychology. People who have traumatic experiences will insert any bullshit into their brains. Whatever preconceived notion they had, you can bet that's what they saw. If a theist sees something that defies all common sense, you can bet they just saw God. Even if in reality it's just something that they personally (with the limited information they have access to) can't explain. Religious experiences doesn't prove shit and shouldn't convince anybody.

 

[skepticalbip]

Mystical experiences are quite easy for science to explain. There's tonnes of books written on it.

Not only can science explain mystical experiences, they can duplicate them for instance using the God Helmet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

 

[popsthebuilder]

DrZoidberg,

1)never "saw" GOD

2)my experience was in utter subriety. The seemingly otherworldly nature of things one may think they experience while on mind altering substances is not really similar to what happened to me.

4)my belief or rather absence of belief in GOD was genuine. My thoughts on a causal force or higher power somewhat fluctuated. I can recall times when younger that I recognized the literal Sun as a higher power and causal, or at very least pertinent to our very existince. I recall too, a vain time when I arragantly and stubbornly thought there was no higher power than me (in my own life), thinking all that happened to me was an effect of something I had done either directly or indirectly. There was even a time that I secretly viewed myself as the antichrist in some non literal form as my disbelief seemed to me the antithesis of what false religious hypocrites seemed to exude. I truely believed in neither a positive or negative force in my life. I believed such to be utter nonsense, likened to fairytales, myths, and false direction by way of propogated fear. I believed wholly in science/ evolution (and still do, yet more carefully).
Again; there was no opportunity for indoctrination...ever. If there was a prayer in a family gathering, say Easter, then I secretly felt both sorry, and somehow better than whoever was giving genuine thanks and asking for blessings, or favor.
Looking back on these things I am somewhat shamed.

Mystical experiences? Like nde? I don't know what study could have solid conclusion about an experience that can only be described, and not observed.

How do you jump to taking things literally in my case? Perhaps it's my fault for not clarifying; scripture, is verification of what I know. What I know is based both on my experiences and observations completely. Though what happened to me may have been due to some particular criteria, I was not solely causal of it.

What are you talking about with omnipotence? As if the ultimate causal force didn't have to be caused. If all one observes is effectual then it has a cause. Going all the way back to the source is not possible through our capacities as infinity is indeed outside of our full understanding. Neither does an all knowing thing have to be observably all controlling. Some may think it does, but that is applying vanity to GOD, a human, negative trait. This is a false addition to GOD.

Your statement about the ready observability and scientific testability of GOD are too derived from vanity. As if science or even mathematics has explained away all that is. To think all is strictly material in nature and as such observable, is very closed minded in my opinion. Even if literally all was theorized through equation, it would only verify the very nature of all. That nature would be that of precision and intelligence. Geometry in nature is quite grand, I must admit. That lends credence to GOD, not the absence of it.

It isn't refuted by science in any way, and I am confident that our scientific understanding of existence and the origins there of will continue to point to an ultimate creative force with time, if we have enough anyway.

A what if at a dinner setting? No, it's backed by the conscience, morality, and is deeply ingrained in man since before written word to the point of them willingly dying for it. Altruism comes to mind, another observable trait in nature, the same nature that GOD set in motion and guided from before the start.

Now to your perspective;

1) I heard of Jesus and, or God when I was a young child, in school, up until mid first grade. My inmmidiate family was not religious. My father was a quite atheist that I didn't learn of until much later. My mother was Christian but we never spoke of God, read th bible, went to church or any of that. I think it was seeded in her like you talk about maybe at some bare minimum, maybe to appease her mother, but she really didn't even go through the motions from my recount.

2)At a very young age I figured there was no God based on observation of pain and atrocity. The religious hipocrite bit didn't come until later.
3) I didn't realize anything of the sort.
I was born in 81. I was given proof of God on a personal level in '11, and not by my doing.

Of course my personal experience, revelation, salvation is refutable. I never said I could proove anything else for anyone else.

Funny you should mention witnesses...never mind.

I've had "traumatic" experiences, or at least what others would call such. The experience that resulted in my Faith was the opposite.

Again, you succeed in insult; I wasn't an fn theist when it happened. I was and am a skeptical thinker with a decent iq and no social skills, allowing for time for thought. This has always been the case and I have always had a fascination with science and an alright laymens understanding of it as it does interest me and always has.

I can explain it all day.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't belong to anything. My Faith is a product of things I have witnessed personally. GOD, the One Creator GOD that I have faith in isn't based on any book or indoctrination. It is based on what was shown to me, not by man, or the writings of man inspired by GOD. I don't divide the faithful of GOD so There are similarities to religions in ways.

What did he show you and how did you differentiate it from a potential false positive on your part?

Additionally, why do you feel he showed you? He didn't show me and he didn't show lots of other people. There are hundreds of millions of atheists and other forms of non-believers in the world who have heard the Word of God (or whatever you'd like to call it) and found it lacking in evidentiary support. According to you, we are all in for a lengthy bout of torture in the afterlife because of this. As I understand what you've been saying, you were in a similar position until God decided to directly intervene in your life and provide you with some very personal, irrefutable and life changing additional evidence of his existence, which allows you to avoid this.

For an omnipotent being, simultaneously personally tailoring several hundred million individually-styled, irrefutable pieces of evidence would require no more difficulty or level of energy expenditure than doing for one person. What do you feel his rationale behind doing it piecemeal instead was?

Just saw your post. I will try to answer it as soon and as clearly as possible.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Tom Sawyer,

Your manner of inquiry actually did put a smile on my face. Thank you for your general demeanor, or at least the politness or level of mutual respect. It is generally needed fo productive conversation on either end, and I thank you with sincerity.

A false positive would have to come from a bias of some sort. Admittedly, at that particular point in time I was not biased in favor of God or against it. Thinking about it; it would have been a rather peculiar state no longer being against the consept of God, yet not being for it, or believing it. Really I wasn't putting much thought into it, and never really had, not compared to how I am now anyway. A false positive. I wasn't looking for anything. I wasn't actively seeking God or refutation of it. In fact, I thought I was in a tolerable, if not thriving state without God really being in the general though process. It takes a peculiar breed indeed to put some thought of God in the forefront of thought and desision making. Still now, I don't. I surely didn't then.

What was I shown?...well...uhm...first, I was driving. The radio that always worked, faded out. Peculiar. I adjusted the knobs for volume and station with no change. Strange, but whatever, right?
The next thing I can recall is what I can only describe as the lifting away of burden or weight. It literally felt like a load had been taken from my shoulders. I had been in a wholly loathsome state for years. Full of contempt, hatred, anger, and malace towards myself and civilization or society in general. It consumed me to the point that I literally used it as motivation or energy. That is why I say I was not really aware that I needed anything, or that I was incapable of change on some levels. Again though; at that time I was more humbled or aware of my inability to change in some areas, and also had realized that I wasn't quite as in control of myself as I had previously thought. This must sound like crazy ramblings. Let me try to clarify more; though I was generally always pretty strong willed and well adapted to pain and anger to the point of seemingly thriving on them, I was, at that point still somewhat unsuccessfully battling a severe crack addiction. Also though I thought I was ok being bent constantly, I nearly killed someone. Though I didn't harm them in any way at that time, the level of blind determination and false justification of such is now, in retrospect, quite negative and would have been detrimental to the lives of many.

Ok, sorry.

So my anger and pain that consumed me where taken away instantly. This brought about a sense of utter gratitude and humility. Joy, pure and utter joy is the best way I can describe it I guess. After this I was shown that every turning point in my life when I thought I was alone, God was there. Everything that I thought had happened by chance and my own hand was understood to have been predestined and for a reason. Namely, that moment of revelation. I was shown that my very existence, and struggle throughout was ordained and laid out prior to my very conseption. I was shown that every part of me was for a particular purpose. Every trial, experience, and observation were for a reason and understood in a new way that on some level was always there, sorta subconsciously I guess. Still utterly grateful and filled with new joy, and hope and appreciation for life, many things sorta came to the for front of thought or consiousness in regards to morality, sociey, right and wrong, and the general direction of man as opposed to the supposed direction. I sorta came back to and the radio faded back in. I continued home . Upon getting there I searched for something to write on/ with fervently. I was thinking of was going to record what had happened, but what was written was more of like a moral code of sorts. I still have it, and it's dated. Ever so often I add to it in ways.

I can't say for sure why I was shone these things. I think I has to do with falling exceedingly low, or being tried often. I think God gives us freedom. Life is a gift. What sort of gift is unquestioned adherance or obedience with no option. It is imprisonment. To be strictly lead along a singular path is to not know of any alternative route. It would be equivelent to a vegitable or in animate object to me. I believe most may be veiled by upbringing, society, and greed in varied ways. Please don't think I'm calling you greedy. I am not. Simply stating what could limit ones perception or understanding. I'm sorry. This subject is very hard to convey without seeming insinuated insult. Please know that that isn't my intentions. Also, the previous part must sound arragant. Again; I try not to sound that way, I am not at all arragant or proud. It is just somehow conveyed through the subject matter. Again, I apologize.

I do not think that those who have searched for God in hope, humility, suplication, and mercy are denied such. But also I don't think God comes to our understanding by our command either. I don't think that those who have sought God and not found it on some level aren't cursed to damnation at all. It is a common misconception of scripture. If one looks in the manner I just described with patience and perceverance then what fault is it of theirs for not finding such. At very least one would find an inner morality known as the conscience which is a guiding system. To realize such and ignore it may be cause for judgement, not simply never coming to any conclusion. Our freedom is key to our eventual understanding as one must learn from mistakes.

I am not safe from judgement in any way, quite the contrary.

I cannot say for certain why GOD doesn't guide all like rocks in space. I can say that it is related to our gifts of freedom, potential, and the responsibility that comes with such.

Thanks, I know I'm all over the place. Just ask me to clarify anything and I will try.

Lastly; I am noone, nothing, of no worth. Do not think that I regard myself as special or blessed or anything.
I am not.

Peace with humility.

Sorry for spelling


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.