Jump to content


Photo

So, You Think You Are Not Religious?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#21 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:46 PM

Just for fun, and because I have some time to kill, here is another interesting exercise for anyone interested in trying to refute the supernatural source for the Bible, and God's use of heptatic structure as proof of authenticity against the onslaught of skeptics. This is from the first of the two short versions of the YouTubes I linked above.

 

OK. Here we go.

 

Try to find an historical figure, modern times preferably so a genealogy can be traced, and write out his family tree, including ancestors going back a couple thousand years. The catch is that your manuscript has to have the following stipulations:

 

The number of words that you have written need be an exact multiple of seven.

 

The number of letters must also be an exact multiple of seven.

 

The number of vowels and the number of consonants are divisible by seven.

 

The number of words that begin with a vowel are divisible by 7.

 

The number of words that begin with a constant must be divisible by 7.

 

The number of words that occur more than once are divisible by 7.

 

Those that occur in only one form are divisible by seven.

 

The number of nouns shall be divisible by seven.

 

Only seven words shall not be nouns.

 

Only seven other kinds of nouns shall be permitted beside names.

 

The number of male names shall be divisible by 7.

 

And finally, the number of generations shall be divisible by 7.

 

Anybody willing to try?

 

What we have here is the heptatic structure of the first 18 verses of Matthew, Chapter 1, in Greek, of the genealogy of Jesus Christ starting with Abraham.

 

Skeptics need to answer the question as to how this could happen.

 

Did Matthew cleverly make up these names, falsely inventing people in Christ's lineage, in order to force a heptatic structure into his writing? If so, why? Who would Matthew think he was trying to fool? Sorry, no.

 

Or, did Christ's ancestors conspire to cleverly arrange their pairings and births over the course of two millennia, planning it all just so a future Matthew could chronicle Christ's lineage and incidentally write up everything with a heptatic structure? Come on, really?

 

Or, and we know this is what really happened, did God supernaturally direct the pairings and births of Christ's ancestors, and then supernaturally inspire Matthew's writings, and then supernaturally inspire within his writings a heptatic structure that would be impossible for any human endeavor to conceive? Why would God do this?

 

You know the answer: In order to expose and quash the foolishness of skeptics.



#22 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 April 2017 - 10:27 AM

Yep I created it! I am a creator just like you!
You
Take the belief not to kill or steal. I am sure you probably generally follow those two rules. Now add the belief in God. What does that do to the two beliefs to turn it into a religion? If you think about it adding that belief supposedly adds credibility to the mentioned beliefs. That's the only difference I can see. "A rose by any other name would smell the same."

 

A belief doesn't become better or worse depending on who says it; that's called an argument from authority, and the fallacy doesn't become less fallacious just because some God says it.

 

language exist for my benefit not me for the benefit of language.

 

But it's not just for your benefit; it's for the benefit of entire communities. To that end language has standard definitions. You can define "religion" as any "belief", but as I stated before you are just equivocating with your own made up definition. There's no reason to take it seriously. I can define "atheist" as "anyone who doesn't acknowledge the existence and power of Zeus", and therefore call everyone on this forum an atheist by definition. If you want to call me religious, then I can call you an atheist. After all, language exists for my benefit, right?

 

And when have my words forced you to do anything? I am trying to get you and others to see the deception we are all under based on the belief Satan passed off on Adam and Eve. There is no good or evil in any event external from our mind. There are no externals causing emotion and behavior. "It" can't do anything to us. We are doing it to ourselves and the only way to stop is to quit. Religion isn't doing anything to you.

And If you (we ) are ever going to have peace you (we) are going to have to create it individually in our minds.

I am trying to convice you to think outside the paradign you have accepted--to question what you have accepted as your personal (belief system or religion) rules. It becomes a religion because you add your own credibility to your beliefs. Therefore believe in God or no God is not the issue. You have the power yolbecome your own credible source. Thus sayeth Goku. LOL

I give different meanings and spin to jog you into questioningg anything you believe such as religion becoming an entity by you continiously peronyfying it!

 

Making up your own definitions and equivocating them in order to save and spread your world view is not normal behavior. You seem to be aware that you are doing this which means you aren't delusional in the sense that you don't know what is going on, which suggests that you have a compulsive need to control the language of others in order to maintain your world view regardless of its validity in the real world.

 

What's interesting is that you have no problem when your 'group' of Christians use figurative language; you only bring out the personifying cry when it is someone not of your Christian 'group'. For all your talk about how wrong it is to talk about groups, you seem entrenched viewing the world through the lens of 'groups' it seems, as expressed by your own actions.

 

I had to think outside the paradigm I accepted and believed, and question my own personal belief system in a critical way, in order to become an atheist.

 

I realize that you might see me as a control freak so I try to get you to realize that you can be a control freak by trying to maintain the status quo! My efforts are motivated by the great affection my mind has created for you.

 

I am a control freak by insisting that we use normal definitions which everyone understands rather than your made up definitions which you equivocate with? Yep, makes perfect sense. :rolleyes: 

 

The most efficient method of being a control freak is to sell pernicious ideas to others like the old addage feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for life. I want you to rule you and slow the belief that you need to save us from belief in God. I have e occasion why don't think you are qualified to determine who can exist in the universe.

 

Wait, what; teaching someone how to get their own food so they can sustain themselves for years rather than tossing them a meal which will last a day as if they were a beggar is, "pernicious"? That's a new one.

 

 I assume that you are talking to me? Not the group? There is no group brain (central control) of people. We all act in a unilateral fashion based on our individual belief system.

I will tell you what I think and feel about you as an in dividual! I think of you as my brother and because of that I am responsible to treat you fairly and tell you "the truth" (as I do myself and others). I get the impression you don't think I belong to the same group you do? Right away that sets up this "us vs them" aura about the things you say as if you are mr high and mighty and not a fellow human being. I haven't done any of the things you acuse "my" in group of doing. I don't see nyself being against anyone!

 

There are innumerable groups. We are obviously not in the same religious group, but we are still in the same human group.

 

If you are so against groups, then why do you talk about atheists as if they are a group which you can describe in broad strokes? Seems rather self-defeating.

 

What things have I accused your group of doing? As I recall I recently talked about the "Christian right" in other threads; so why do you view yourself to be in this group if you don't like the concept of group?

 

There you go perdnyfying religion as if it is an entity and has will and volition. Individuals are persuasive not artificial entities such as groups and corporations (iinstitutions). How powerful is "religion" over you when you seem yo and I think you have discarded it? This is an example of self-deception at its zenith!

 

You have no problem when people you view as being in the same Christian group as yourself use figurative language, but when someone outside of your perceived group does this you can't stop talking about how horrible it is. So much for being above the "us vs them" mentality.

 

What an incredible naïve declaration. Are you really saying that alleged atheists have no belief system? What are you using to to rasom with if not your beliefs? Don't you think?

 

At this point if you have to equivocate this badly I think you know my point is valid.

 

Yes, it is a belief from part of my religion (belief system by another name). I guess you have a similar belief? What makes a belief system a religion is the belief yhat God believes the same thing we claim we believe. The addition of belief in God supposedly adds credibility. But you hsve proven to yourself that you don't need the addition of God as you can generate your own credibility. You would not be so dogmatic in your belief in atheism if you werem't adding your own c rdibility to your decrees!

Heliocentrism, I believe, has little effect (usage as an ac tion causing belief motivated by an intelligent being) and on the relationships that people have with each other. How many wars have there been fought lately that involve whether the earth revolves around the sun or not?

 

How many religions do you subscribe to?

 

This is an example of semantics misused. The word religion and belief system are often interchangeable terms. So that when someone refers to it, atheism, being a religion they are pointing out everyone of us has a belief system. People that allege atheism try to give the impression that they don't have a belief system. All of us have a belief system no matter what we call it. As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell the same."

 

"Often interchangeable", not equivalent to, and it is only "often interchangeable" because most people believe in God. You yourself know that you are equivocating and engaging in countless logical fallacies in order to push your own agenda.

 

I would say that hate is one of mans problems. Blaming religion is much too general.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to know which specific beliefs within a person's belief system (religion) is problematic. Since there are many beliefs in a person's belief system (religion) isn't it far too general to claim the entire belief system is problematic?

 

Don't you think it is problematic when you make up quotes about what others believe then demand that they explain themselves?

 

I'm not telling them what they believe. I am giving them feedback on how they say something comes across to me. More accurately I would be reflecting how they come across to me as what they believe and are communicating.

 

And who said or implied we need to "blame the Christian religion for all mankind's problems"? No one! You just made it up to push your own agenda.

 

Aren't you promulgating that "group" thinking you condemned earlier? You seem to think all atheists must believe that Christianity is behind all the evils of the world, despite no one on this forum has ever said or implied that, and because you view all atheists as being in this group they must all think that.



#23 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 07 April 2017 - 03:19 AM

Just for fun, and because I have some time to kill, here is another interesting exercise for anyone interested in trying to refute the supernatural source for the Bible, and God's use of heptatic structure as proof of authenticity against the onslaught of skeptics. This is from the first of the two short versions of the YouTubes I linked above.

 

OK. Here we go.

 

Try to find an historical figure, modern times preferably so a genealogy can be traced, and write out his family tree, including ancestors going back a couple thousand years. The catch is that your manuscript has to have the following stipulations:

 

The number of words that you have written need be an exact multiple of seven.

 

The number of letters must also be an exact multiple of seven.

 

The number of vowels and the number of consonants are divisible by seven.

 

The number of words that begin with a vowel are divisible by 7.

 

The number of words that begin with a constant must be divisible by 7.

 

The number of words that occur more than once are divisible by 7.

 

Those that occur in only one form are divisible by seven.

 

The number of nouns shall be divisible by seven.

 

Only seven words shall not be nouns.

 

Only seven other kinds of nouns shall be permitted beside names.

 

The number of male names shall be divisible by 7.

 

And finally, the number of generations shall be divisible by 7.

 

Anybody willing to try?

 

What we have here is the heptatic structure of the first 18 verses of Matthew, Chapter 1, in Greek, of the genealogy of Jesus Christ starting with Abraham.

 

Skeptics need to answer the question as to how this could happen.

 

Did Matthew cleverly make up these names, falsely inventing people in Christ's lineage, in order to force a heptatic structure into his writing? If so, why? Who would Matthew think he was trying to fool? Sorry, no.

 

Or, did Christ's ancestors conspire to cleverly arrange their pairings and births over the course of two millennia, planning it all just so a future Matthew could chronicle Christ's lineage and incidentally write up everything with a heptatic structure? Come on, really?

 

Or, and we know this is what really happened, did God supernaturally direct the pairings and births of Christ's ancestors, and then supernaturally inspire Matthew's writings, and then supernaturally inspire within his writings a heptatic structure that would be impossible for any human endeavor to conceive? Why would God do this?

 

You know the answer: In order to expose and quash the foolishness of skeptics.

- The number of words is easy, that's counting the number of words and rephrasing some sentence (like including a mothers name, including some event,..).

- The number of letters is similarly easy.

- Vowels, consonants, just the same.

- The number of words that start with a vowel is just 'fixing' some names. 

- If you have the number of words and the amount of those with a vowel fixed, the number of those with a consonant follows.

- Those that occur more than once seems tricky when described just like that, but hey everything is phrased

"Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah" makes counting pretty easy, right?
- The forms of the words, I'm not sure what that means, but I'm guessing that we're talking about the end of word that changes depending on the purpose of it in the sentence. That's also trivial if you have the first already done and nearly all your statements consist of "X father of Y".
- 7 none-noun words and 7 kinds of nouns besides the names becomes also trivial because of the structure.
- The number of male names and the number of generations are tied.
 
That is, if you're talking about a fictional character with a fictional genealogy. 
Thus, as a proof that it isn't a fictional character, it is insufficient.
 
 

Your example of the heptatic structure of Edgar Allen Poe's first line from "The Raven" doesn't even come close to refuting the fact of God's heptatic structure of the Bible.

 

To do so, you'd have to do the heptatic rendering for the whole first stanza. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering of the second stanza, and then one spanning the first two stanzas, where any breakdown in the structure ends the heptatic integrity. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering spanning the first, second and third stanzas. Then do a heptatic rendering spanning all the stanzas in the whole "The Raven" poem.

 

Once you have successfully accomplished that, do a similar paragraph by paragraph and chapter by chapter heptatic rendering of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart." Then do a heptatic rendering spanning both "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart," where the integrity of the sevens only works if both stories are included.

 

When you have successfully done that, repeat it for 28 of Poe's works. Be careful to find sevens that span all of those works where the integrity breaks down if even one of the works does not play to the count.

If the structure is Hepatic in 1 line and the structure is Hepatic in another, by definition the two lines combined are also Hepatic... 
X = a*7 (structure of line X has an element in a multiple 'a' of 7)
Y = b*7 (structure of line Y has an element in a multiple 'b' of 7)
X+Y = (a+ B)*7 (structure of line X and Y combined has an element in a multiple 'a+b' of 7)


#24 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 07 April 2017 - 08:47 AM

Fjuri, so it looks like you choose to go with the first of my anticipated skeptics' explanation for the heptatic structure of Scripture.

 

Did Matthew cleverly make up these names, falsely inventing people in Christ's lineage, in order to force a heptatic structure into his writing? If so, why? Who would Matthew think he was trying to fool? Sorry, no.

 

The reason why your explanation doesn't work is because Jesus Christ's ancestors were real people, with real names that were fixed in history thousands of years before either Christ or Matthew were born. Those names existed in the Old Testament, and couldn't be fudged.

 

So you believe that Matthew cleverly formulated his recitation of Christ's ancestry, inventing a clever, hidden, proof text in his writing ... thanking his lucky stars that the names of people in Christ's genealogy just happened to fall into place with all the sevens counting. Yeah, right. That's easy to believe.

 

Then you have every other author of the books of the Bible doing the same thing over a span of thousands of years, each interelating with each other. Again, easy. Right?

 

No, Fjuri, your worldview precludes you from admitting a supernatural cause, so you thrash around in your denial and end up believing something that is orders of magnitudes more impossible. Hey, sounds like we're getting into a debate about evolution, huh.

 

If the structure is Hepatic in 1 line and the structure is Hepatic in another, by definition the two lines combined are also Hepatic...

 

You missed the point on that one. Throughout God's word the heptatic structure spans two or more books. IOW, 3 in one book, 4 in another book, equaling seven. Multiply that by hundreds, thousands, throughout the 66 books, and you must believe there was a huge conspiracy among all of the authors, who lived thousands of years apart. Good luck with that.

 

Or, you can believe the truth. The Bible is God inspired, and he inserted this heptatic structure in order to confound skeptics.

 

I'm thinking of another one, just for fun, that the only way to deny supernatural inspiration is to believe that humans can travel through time.

 

Stay tuned.



#25 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 April 2017 - 10:54 AM

Just for fun, and because I have some time to kill, here is another interesting exercise for anyone interested in trying to refute the supernatural source for the Bible, and God's use of heptatic structure as proof of authenticity against the onslaught of skeptics. This is from the first of the two short versions of the YouTubes I linked above.
 
OK. Here we go.
 
Try to find an historical figure, modern times preferably so a genealogy can be traced, and write out his family tree, including ancestors going back a couple thousand years. The catch is that your manuscript has to have the following stipulations:
 
The number of words that you have written need be an exact multiple of seven.
 
The number of letters must also be an exact multiple of seven.
 
The number of vowels and the number of consonants are divisible by seven.
 
The number of words that begin with a vowel are divisible by 7.
 
The number of words that begin with a constant must be divisible by 7.
 
The number of words that occur more than once are divisible by 7.
 
Those that occur in only one form are divisible by seven.
 
The number of nouns shall be divisible by seven.
 
Only seven words shall not be nouns.
 
Only seven other kinds of nouns shall be permitted beside names.
 
The number of male names shall be divisible by 7.
 
And finally, the number of generations shall be divisible by 7.
 
Anybody willing to try?
 
What we have here is the heptatic structure of the first 18 verses of Matthew, Chapter 1, in Greek, of the genealogy of Jesus Christ starting with Abraham.
 
Skeptics need to answer the question as to how this could happen.

since i don't know greek:
1. was this analysis done on the original greek document.
2. are there any vowels/ consonants that can viewed either way, such as Y in english.
3. who "peered reviewed" this analysis, IOW who double checked it.

i'm quite sure #2 above will be the show stopper.

#26 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 07 April 2017 - 11:32 AM

since i don't know greek:
1. was this analysis done on the original greek document.
2. are there any vowels/ consonants that can viewed either way, such as Y in english.
3. who "peered reviewed" this analysis, IOW who double checked it.

i'm quite sure #2 above will be the show stopper.

Those would be good questions if proof of the integrity of God's word depended on the heptatic structure of just those few verses in one chapter of Matthew.

 

However, you could eliminate that entire chapter from the Bible and the astronomical odds against the heptatic structure underlying the remaining 27 chapters of Matthew and the other 65 books of the Bible happening by happenstance, or even by human design, would still be overwhelming proof the Bible is of supernatural origin.

 

The equivalence in evolution to what God has provided us with his heptatic design of Scripture would be if by some miracle there were 100 fossils found detailing a minute step-by-step evolution of whales, for example. And where there was irrefutable proof that each fossil was a direct descendant of the previous fossil in the timeline ... leading to a chain of absolute proof of the evolution of whales.

 

That nothing does exist for evolution that even comes close to the integrity of proof that we find in God's word leads me to wonder why there aren't more evolution skeptics and fewer Bible skeptics. In other words, if shooting down the Matthew genealogy would debunk the Bible because there isn't more proof, then why don't the skeptics apply the same thinking to whale evolution, which, if they would admit it, hinges on only one or two easily debunked fossil finds?

 

And that provides an extremely fortuitous segue back to the original topic, My answer to the question just above is that it's because evolutionists pursue their beliefs with a religious fervor and are willing to suspend disbelief based on faith, despite what the evidence actually tells them.



#27 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:37 PM

So, here’s another fun one to keep the skeptics busy trying to refute the supernatural origin of the Bible.

 

Something interesting about the book of Matthew (in the original Greek) is that there are 42 words, containing 126 letters, that are completely unique to that book. Those words don’t appear in any of the other gospels, in any of the epistles, or in any of the remaining books of the New Testament. Interestingly, both numbers are evenly divisible by 7. Pure coincidence, right?

 

You say, well that’s easy. All Matthew had to do was collect all the other works in the NT by all the other authors and make sure he used 42 words that none of the others did. Besides the absurdity of why Matthew would bother to do that, there is one other big, huge, problem. At the time that Matthew wrote his gospel, many of the other authors hadn’t penned theirs yet, some were still almost 40 years in the future. In fact, by the time that John penned his most of the others were martyred or otherwise deceased.

 

OK. If the skeptic still wants to write that off to just dumb luck, he’s got more problems yet.

 

The problem is that the book of Mark has a list of words that are completely unique to just that book, the number of those words and letters divisible by seven, of course. OK. That’s stretching coincidence a bit. But, I’m sure skeptics are still hanging in there.

 

Then there’s the book of Luke. And John. And James. And Peter. and Jude. And all of Paul’s writings. All have a set of words which are unique to just their particular book. All those numbers of words and letters are evenly divisible by seven, of course.

 

So, how did they manage that? Any guesses?

 

Here’s the thing. I could go on and on with these fascinating stories about the integrity of the Bible just from the heptatic structure that God designed into it. There actually is much, much more. I haven’t even touched on gematria, hidden microcodes and macrocodes, types, prophesies, foreshadowings, etc. Much of it, like gematria, is not important for salvation or doctrine. And some folks do get carried away with some aspects of it. But, what these elements do is prove the integrity of God’s word and point out the foolishness of the unbeliever and skeptic.

 

Here’s an interesting one, just for fun.

 

The gematria for the word revelation (apocalypsis) in Greek is 1,512. That’s 7 x 6 x 6 x 6. I wouldn’t hang doctrine on that, but it is fun.



#28 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 April 2017 - 06:25 AM

Fjuri, so it looks like you choose to go with the first of my anticipated skeptics' explanation for the heptatic structure of Scripture.

 

 

The reason why your explanation doesn't work is because Jesus Christ's ancestors were real people, with real names that were fixed in history thousands of years before either Christ or Matthew were born. Those names existed in the Old Testament, and couldn't be fudged.

Yet they were. Names are missing when comparing 1 Chronicles 3:10-16 with Matthew 1.

Sure, reasons where proposed as to why this might be. But no independent verification is possible. Fudging is as likely an explanation as the next...

 

Also, these names that were referenced were already in hepatic documents, where they not? So re-using the same stuff is very likely to give the same results...

 

No offense mate, but all said and done. A nice piece of literature, but no proof of revelation.



#29 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:00 AM

Yet they were. Names are missing when comparing 1 Chronicles 3:10-16 with Matthew 1.

Sure, reasons where proposed as to why this might be. But no independent verification is possible. Fudging is as likely an explanation as the next...

 

Also, these names that were referenced were already in hepatic documents, where they not? So re-using the same stuff is very likely to give the same results...

 

No offense mate, but all said and done. A nice piece of literature, but no proof of revelation.

You must have been in a hurry when you posted this. The list of names in 1 Chron is not the genealogy of Christ, so it is irrelevant.

 

But, you missed an important one. There is also a genealogy of Christ in Luke that differs greatly from the Matthew version. There's a very good reason for this, and it illustrates the amazing supernatural slight of hand that God performed in order to thwart Satan's evil plan to corrupt the seed of Christ. Look it up. You'll be fascinated.

 

 

Also, these names that were referenced were already in hepatic documents, where they not? So re-using the same stuff is very likely to give the same results...

Sure, how about if you take any list of names and write up a document matching all of the heptatic elements from Matthew 1. Then, when you are basking in your crowning achievement after doing that, do that again for all of the 138,020 words, 7956 verses and 260 chapters in the 66 books of the Bible.

 

I can just picture it. You'll be working furiously on your computer, putting in hours and hours of work on your list of names, trashing try after try until, maybe, you finally come up with a reasonable result. Yet Matthew did it without the aid of a computer, probably in one draft scratching out his manuscript on parchment with some kind of stylus. And, he didn't even have reams of paper to discard try after try. Egads! The unbelievers' skepticism knows no bounds.

 

But, this begs the question again. Why would Matthew do this? Was he jealous of all the other authors who did it, and wanted to do one? Was it a conspiracy among all the authors? Or, did God inspire every letter, every word, and Matthew was merely the scribe.

 

 

Sure, reasons where proposed as to why this might be. But no independent verification is possible. Fudging is as likely an explanation as the next...

Oops. For a second there I thought you were talking about evolution. Please tell me that the irony doesn't escape you. :)



#30 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 April 2017 - 12:58 PM

You must have been in a hurry when you posted this. The list of names in 1 Chron is not the genealogy of Christ, so it is irrelevant.

 

..

You must have been in a hurry when you posted this.

The list of names in 1 Chron is exactly the list of names you referred to in your earlier post:

 

...

 

The reason why your explanation doesn't work is because Jesus Christ's ancestors were real people, with real names that were fixed in history thousands of years before either Christ or Matthew were born. Those names existed in the Old Testament, and couldn't be fudged.

...

 

 

It is a genealogy from David to Zerubbabel.

Similarly, part of Matthew's geneology is from David to Zorobabel.

Those parts should be the same..



#31 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 08 April 2017 - 11:44 PM

Goku, you could have stopped right there and saved yourself a lot of time and trouble with the rest of the post. Since you don't believe that God is the author of his own words then you have totally nullified any argument you can make about what those words mean. All you can do is join the ranks of skeptics and debunkers who believe the Bible is fiction, written by mortal man.

 

Point of fact is that God has not given us Scripture for the enlightenment of non-believers. In fact Jesus explicitly says in Matt 13:11 that only believers can understand his teaching. To all others it is merely foolishness.

 

From my perspective if a believer uses the 'unless you're a believer you can't understand what the Bible says' argument, then I consider that a victory. It's a nonsense response; non-sequitur. You don't accept evolution; does that mean I can now say any argument you make about what evolution is or means is nullified because you don't accept evolution?

 

Besides, I'm not interpreting scripture as if I am completely on the outside without a clue. There are literally millions of Christians that also accept that the Bible was not dictated word for word stroke for stroke as if the authors were mindless secretaries, and that while God may have guided and inspired them their words are their own (except when directly quoting Yahweh etc.). Are you going to tell them that they can't understand because they are not true believers like you?

 

Here is an article from Blue Letter Bible explaining why they think the Bible was not mindlessly dictated by the authors: https://www.bluelett...tewart_1246.cfm

 

Here is an article from the International Bible Society explaining why they think the Bible was not dictated: https://www.biblica....bible-inspired/  

 

Here is an article by William Lane Craig in which he rejects dictation theory: http://www.reasonabl...-spoke-from-god 

 

My point is that I am not talking about some uniquely atheistic stance, but really main-stream Judeo-Christian theology - at least as far as the Bible not being dictated from God as if it fell out of Heaven fully formed.

 

However, I would like to address one of your points.

 

Your example of the heptatic structure of Edgar Allen Poe's first line from "The Raven" doesn't even come close to refuting the fact of God's heptatic structure of the Bible.

 

To do so, you'd have to do the heptatic rendering for the whole first stanza. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering of the second stanza, and then one spanning the first two stanzas, where any breakdown in the structure ends the heptatic integrity. Then, you'd have to do a heptatic rendering spanning the first, second and third stanzas. Then do a heptatic rendering spanning all the stanzas in the whole "The Raven" poem.

 

Once you have successfully accomplished that, do a similar paragraph by paragraph and chapter by chapter heptatic rendering of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart." Then do a heptatic rendering spanning both "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart," where the integrity of the sevens only works if both stories are included.

 

When you have successfully done that, repeat it for 28 of Poe's works. Be careful to find sevens that span all of those works where the integrity breaks down if even one of the works does not play to the count.

 

If you have successfully accomplished that then you have done what God provided in just one book of the Bible. The heptatic integrity holds for the entire book of Matthew, with its 18,345 words, 1,071 verses and 28 chapters. Congratulations. You have done what no human author (like EA Poe) could possibly do.

 

But, we are not finished.

 

Now, do a similar heptatic rendering of 16 of the novels and short stories by another author, say, Charles Dickens. That should be easy, right? You've already proven the heptatic integrity of 28 works of EA Poe. But, then you must do a heptatic rendering of those 28 Poe's works and those 16 Dickens' works, where the heptatic integrity depends on spanning both authors' works. Good luck with that. It should be easy, right? Especially since both authors lived relatively contemporaneously.

 

If you succeed at that, then you have just equaled the heptatic integrity that God gave us in only the first two books of the New Testament ... Matthew and Mark, with Mark's 11,304 words, 678 verses and 16 chapters. No sweat, right?

 

While you are resting after doing that, go ahead and do the same thing with the works of 25 more authors. I'll make it easy by letting you choose works by authors who lived and wrote within one lifespan's time in modern history. Please by sure that your heptatic rendering spans all the works from Matthew to Revelation, where each book's sevens integrity is dependent on each other book.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, don't count only vowels, consonents, syllables, and other grammar elements. Also count people's names, place names, elements of doctrine, number of miracles, etc. Don't leave anything out.

 

We're not done yet.

 

Before you can prove that the heptatic structure of all of the Bible's 66 books is man-made and not inspired by God, you'd have to do one more thing.

 

Do the same heptatic thing for about 49 ancient writers that you did for modern ones. Admittedly this will be a little more difficult because you'll have to find authors who penned their works spanning several thousands of years time, and dealing with different languages. Nothing newer than 400 BC. I'm thinking Homer, Virgil, Pliny, Aesop, for example.

 

Having accomplished that. We're almost finished now. All you have to do to refute God's inspiration in the writing of Scripture is do a heptatic rendering of vowels, consonents, syllables, words, names and place names that span all of the ancient works from the first to the last with all of the modern works from the first to the last, from the first ancient work to the last modern work.

 

(Sarc) Should be easy, right?(/Sarc)

 

Goku, if you don't finally admit that it can't be done by the human hand, then you just plain aren't thinking right. However, God did it with more than 40 authors who penned 66 books over thousands of years time.

 

I'm not even convinced there is a heptatic structure in the Bible as claimed. As I explained in post #12, Panin appeared to have fabricated his version of the last 12 verses of Mark in order to get the heptatic structure he desired. I suspect it was more blind bias than conscious deception, but it highlights two key problems with this whole analysis.

 

1) There is no "The Bible" in the manuscripts - at least not in the sense of 'every word, consonant, vowel, etc.' has been perfectly preserved from the original to today. So already doing some kind of mysterious number code where every word, letter, and sentence structure must be, 'just so', is a bit self-defeating from the outset.

 

2) Without the original text you can select which manuscript best fits your desired outcome, and slightly change it in order to fit your agenda as Panin apparently did with the last 12 verses of Mark. Panin went with the Westcott and Hort addition, which was still 3 words too short for his heptatic structure and thus had to create his own unique 12 verses to reveal this heptatic structure.

 

Here is a Christian saying that Panin's work is nonsense:  http://www.bibletopi...blestudy/83.htm 

 

The evidence Panin gives for the Hebrew text is no better.  He uses the opening words of Scripture: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".  In Hebrew this verse contains 7 words (feature 1), which have 14 (7 x 2) syllables (feature 2) and 28 (7 x 4) letters (feature 3). Words containing the subject and predicate have 14 letters, and words containing the object 14 letters (feature 4).  However, this example is even more extensive because Panin persists in examining it until he has discovered twenty-five features (some rather exotic) involving seven or a multiple of seven.  To Panin this outcome was absolute proof of the inspiration of the verse.

........

 

Panin's findings would be more striking if what he found in each verse followed the same pattern.  Yet Genesis 1:2 contains 52 letters (not a multiple of 7), and fails to contain many of the features of verse.  Should we then conclude that verse 2 is not inspired?  Or has God set out a different pattern of sevens in verse two?  Since Panin had so many features of seven to choose from, he could always persist until he had found his self-imposed ten features of seven.  In examining the Greek text he often extended the number of features of seven by counting the sum of the Greek letters in words or phrases (each letter of the Greek alphabet was used as a symbol for a number).

 

 

 

 

Goku says: It sure looks like Panin did little more than shoehorn the Bible into this heptatic structure by selecting the manuscripts he wanted, changed the manuscripts to fit his agenda, was selective about which passages he openly examined in this way, and seemed to have examined the passages for these 'features' of seven by throwing bowls of spaghetti on the wall and seeing which ones stuck. 

 

All in all, once you get past the theatrics, it is not convincing based on the stuff I've seen thus far.



#32 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:33 AM

From my perspective if a believer uses the 'unless you're a believer you can't understand what the Bible says' argument, then I consider that a victory. It's a nonsense response; non-sequitur. You don't accept evolution; does that mean I can now say any argument you make about what evolution is or means is nullified because you don't accept evolution?

 

Goku, it's not that believers think they are high and mighty and above all other stupid non-believing people by declaring they can understand the Bible and no others can. It's that God himself says that things of the spirit are foolishness to those without the spirit.

 

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

Doesn't that sound right to you? How many times are we believers told that the Bible is a fairy tale, or a man-made book of stories written for the ignorant, uneducated masses? How many times are we called names for believing what the skeptics openly declare and admit is foolishness. You might not like it, or agree with it, but I think God nailed it.

 

And this is not the same thing as arguing evolution unless you are willing to admit that belief in evolution is a spiritual or religious thing, in which case I will happily admit that I don't understand that foolishness.

 

Besides, I'm not interpreting scripture as if I am completely on the outside without a clue. There are literally millions of Christians that also accept that the Bible was not dictated word for word stroke for stroke as if the authors were mindless secretaries, and that while God may have guided and inspired them their words are their own (except when directly quoting Yahweh etc.). Are you going to tell them that they can't understand because they are not true believers like you?

 

My point is that I am not talking about some uniquely atheistic stance, but really main-stream Judeo-Christian theology - at least as far as the Bible not being dictated from God as if it fell out of Heaven fully formed.

 

Goku, your argument here is a red herring. I've scoured my posts in the two topics where this subject is debated, and I overwhelmingly state that the writers of the Bible books were inspired by God, and were not merely automatons receiving dictation. There's one place where I could have given the impression of dictation, and here it is from an earlier post in this topic:

 

Scripture was penned by men inspired by God to write down everything that God told them to write ... word for word, letter by letter, even the little jots and tittles.

 

And I stand by that statement. You notice I said "inspired by God." Yes, each author's individual style comes through in his writing. Yes, each author chose what he was going to write. Matthew, for example, was a tax collector, a government employee, so his rendering of the genealogy of Jesus Christ was from the legal, but not physical, point of view. Luke, on the other hand, was a physician. His genealogy was relating the physical lineage of Christ through his mother's side of the family.

 

These differences in the recounting of Christ's ancestry did not happen by chance, or merely by the whims of each of the authors because of their background and training. Each man wrote exactly what God inspired them to write. There's a fascinating story behind why God engineered this genealogical divergence. I encourage you to look it up. God used (inspired) these men to tell the story exactly the way he wanted it told.

 

To understand how an author of Scripture could write freely in his own style, reflecting his personal background, education and training, but write something that was word-for-word inspired by God you'd have to be able to solve the unsolvable mystery of free will vs predestination.

 

And that's where 1 Cor 2:14 comes in. Without the spirit, such a mystery is foolishness to the natural man. To those of us who are in the spirit it makes perfect sense. We don't understand how it works that way, but we believe it by faith. Again, you might not like it or agree with it, but it's just plain true.

 

I'm not even convinced there is a heptatic structure in the Bible as claimed. As I explained in post #12, Panin appeared to have fabricated his version of the last 12 verses of Mark in order to get the heptatic structure he desired. I suspect it was more blind bias than conscious deception, but it highlights two key problems with this whole analysis.

 

A couple of comments:

 

First, your cut and pastes were from skeptics' websites, researched by skeptics, written by skeptics and written for skeptics. So, no surprise there. And, yes, there are "Christian" skeptics.

 

There are many more websites authenticating Panin's work of a lifetime.

 

Second, you could discount huge portions of Panin's immense work, and still be overwhelmed by the undeniable heptatic phenomenons underlying the rest of the entire Bible.

 

Third, please refer to my earlier comparison of God's heptatic structure in Scripture to checksums written into software code to prove its integrity and authenticity. What does the software engineer do when a checksum returns an error in a portion of code? Does he say the checksum code is faulty, and then accept the corrupted software code? Or does he trust the checksum and admit the software code is corrupted?

 

In a nutshell, you have the explanation as to why Panin used various manuscripts in his heptatic work. The heptatic code proves the manuscript. A faulty manuscript would break the heptatic feature.

 

Of course, this is foolishness to those who cannot believe and cannot understand it.

 

Goku, I am impressed by the scholarship and effort you put into attempting to debunk God's word. I would be extremely more impressed if you would apply the same dedication, effort and scholarship to debunking something that's orders of magnitude more impossible to believe ... the story of evolution.



#33 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:11 AM

Goku,
Lots of people beliueve evolution is true. Lots of people believe evo is not true. As the original post states all people have beliefs (are religious).

As I have mentioned, how tightly and firmly we believe our beliefs is a measure of how "religious" we are. I would say you devoulutly believe in evolution. You give the impression that evo is absolute truth but, you don't seem to admit that creationism is the only process that can account for many things on this planet (like cars, computers, etc). They did not evolve a nd so have to be accounted for as to their origin.

As another example. you devoutly (religiously) believef there is no God. One of your devout (religious) beliefs is survival of the fittest. Although I don 't remember you saying it, I don't think you have ever agreed that creationism is the only choice intelligent beings have of bringing things into existence. We use it all the time. Which means claims that "it" is not scientific (reasonable) are not born out by reality. In truth we can think (practice science) about any subject we want. I am aware of no limitations.

I have realised for 35 years one can't win a power struggle with an equal. That's part of the nature of being human. One can't out create a creator. For whatever I say is truth, you can say the opposite is true. It is our mind that determines what "the truth" is for us. As mentioned in the Bible "abusssing creatvity" (lieing) is the role of the adversary.

God seems to think (as do I and others) that there are some things we do not need to create (like hate and lies). So, he self limits. From readin g the Bible and God's issues with forgiveness, we seem to be more important to him than sin. Moreover, things we can create are not more importan to him (and his followers) than our attitude towards Him and others. Our relationship with him and other is is more important than anything else.



#34 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 April 2017 - 04:04 PM

Those would be good questions if proof of the integrity of God's word depended on the heptatic structure of just those few verses in one chapter of Matthew.
 
However, you could eliminate that entire chapter from the Bible and the astronomical odds against the heptatic structure underlying the remaining 27 chapters of Matthew and the other 65 books of the Bible happening by happenstance, or even by human design, would still be overwhelming proof the Bible is of supernatural origin.

or it may also represent a timeless wisdom
we like to take comfort in our intellectual prowess, but there are those that have come before, leaving us with 1000s years old mysteries.

we can certainly say that at least some parts of the bible were inspired writing.
this is really nothing unusual, i'm sure most of the old timers will agree on that.

the question of origins has not been answered, and in my opinion it's unlikely to happen.
the picture evolutionists paint about evolution is wrong.
again, this is really nothing unusual, but some will have a hard time adjusting to it.
 

That nothing does exist for evolution that even comes close to the integrity of proof that we find in God's word leads me to wonder why there aren't more evolution skeptics and fewer Bible skeptics.

"evolution" is a reality, and it's a far more complex operation than the outmoded natural selection/ genetic drift paradigm.

as far as the bible is concerened, i would advise the new international version.
personally i consider the KJV the standard bible.

#35 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I'm not agnostic. There wasn't a label for my worldeview, so I had to pick one. My worldview: I am You.
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • CA

Posted 11 April 2017 - 02:51 AM

So you think you are not religious?

I get a chuckle out of people who claim dogmatically (usually most people that claim to be atheist) they are not religious. In most cases such people have pulled a dichotomy and are just as demandingly anti God as they once were pro God! I find it their dogmatic demanding point of view that is their maajor dysfuntional as part of their personality. Often their demandingness is transfered to other concepts of their personal belief system!

Jesus once said, "You search heaven and earth to create one proselyte and turn him into twice the son of hell as you are." Atheists aren't very forgiving of those of us who believe in God.

Jesus further commented on the attitude some that allege (dogmatically) there is no God seem to share! Jesus: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father."

One advantage The Christian religion has is a written standard. Alleged atheists have no witten rules save that they are opposed to the possible existance of God.

When alleged atheists blame the Christian religion its wise to ask them what rule of the religion they are referencinnng? For exammple if someoone steals from another can the alleged atheist state the chapter and verse in the gospel where Jesus said to do such things? With no written standard, it seems alleged atheists don't think they have a belief system (religion by another name). Care to share some of you beliefs alleged atheists? "Thou shalt blame the Christian religion for all mankinds problems."

 

Hi Mike. It's been a while since I've been here, and while I've been gone I've had some profound insights. I used to be religious. I grew up Christian. There was too much about that world that didn't make sense to me. There was too much I questioned that led me to become atheist. I thought science was the way to truth. And it is. Just not enough of it.

 

Plus, your right. Being atheist left me with much to be desired in my life. Even though I considered myself an ethical person who had an accurate worldview. There was something more I was missing. Even if I thought I knew the answers to all the questions debated here, I still felt like it wasn't enough. Like there was something I was overlooking. Something huge.

 

I realized what it was. I didn't need to become religious. After all, it is my opinion that the only purpose of institutionalized religion is to procure funds. Why else do it? The masses don't need institutions to worship a religion's god. All you need is the dogma and a place to go. I feel like the institutionalizing of any monotheistic religion was worked into any dogma that deems it necessary for the sole purpose of collecting funds. That's not the only thing that bugged me, but I'll leave it at that.

 

I couldn't very well stay atheist. I knew there was something more that would actually be fullfilling. That's when I discovered the middle road. I call it Oneness.

 

There's no dogma's. No institutions. No disagreements on theories behind observed phenomena. No debates about first causes and intelligent design or evolution.

No anomisity for anybody who has not connected, and therefore does not see things the way I do. The only thing Oneness offers is a way to be loved by the moment and experience the gratitude for rediscovering my true self. And when you do this, you gain a clarity that transcends anything you can know intellectually.

A Christ like clarity. Another mode of knowing truth.

 

I hope that maybe through our discourse I can help you see that you're on the right track to disovering this other mode of knowing. There's just a subtle shift in your perspective that needs to be made. And when you do, all of Jesus' true teachings become so obvious you can't believe you didn't see it before. It makes so much sense, you actually become Christ like because you want to so badly.

 

The very first tennet of Oneness is that everything is a vibration. The second tennet is that all negative things have low vibrations. The third tennet is that all positive things have high vibrations. Fourth tennet, you must make a conscious effort to transform yourself into a high vibrational being. Finally, you must accept that you are literally the universe and not just a part of it. When you do all these things you become open to the other mode of knowing. The FEELING of non-dualism. When I say 'feeling,' I'm not talking about an emotion. It is much more profound. Much deeper. It's a sense of being One with the Divine.

 

It is so amazing, the love, the joy and all that comes with that. Which is nothing short of abundance. I am so grateful for reaching this point. I just want to point people in the right direction. I'm not here to say anyone is wrong in what they believe. All I want to do is help anyone who wants to discover this amazing feeling achieve a way of being, that is more true than anything one can ever experienced through a dualistic perspective.



#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 April 2017 - 05:36 AM

 

 

Philosophik: I used to be religious. I grew up Christian.

 

And yet me, Mike and Dave would all say that nobody can come to a transforming knowledge of Christ and later say something like this for this very thought or "belief" you next describe, is anti-Christian;

 

 

 

Philosophik:  There was too much about that world that didn't make sense to me. There was too much I questioned that led me to become atheist. 

 

There are lots of things that don't make sense to Christians, but because we have received a knowledge of the truth, and have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, which has nothing to do with, "organised religion", but is a genuine, transforming, personal experience of the "life of God" of which many are, "ignorant", you being one of the many, since you think the gospel is something it isn't.

 

Indeed, for someone like me, Dave or Mike to become atheist, when we became atheist we could only say something like this; "God clearly revealed Himself to me on a personal level when I was a Christian, and specifically answered prayer, sometimes in an incredible way, and I knew God, and He was true, as a witness I can tell you that Christianity isn't false and I experienced those things, but now I am an atheist."

 

That is how I know that the common "I grew up Christian" is a 100% false and common argument. Nobody can "grow up Christian", as the gospel message totally contradicts such a statement - you have to come to a saving knowledge of Christ,  before even seeing what the Kingdom of God is, as Christ said. It's not something you just inherit. 

 

I don't say these things to offend you. I say these things because many people don't know that they were never a Christian. 

 

It is like a person being an expert in a certain field, perhaps for the sake of analogy, an expert scientist, and then someone comes along and says, "I used to be a scientist." There is just an immediate instinct from the genuine expert, that the person wasn't a scientist, because he says things which give him away.

 

EXHIBIT A:

 

 

 

Philosophik: I couldn't very well stay atheist. I knew there was something more that would actually be fullfilling

 

You see the problem is - when you are born again you receive a fullfilment, which only God can give, all people born again Christian, can testify to this. That you say, "I knew there was something more", means you did not receive anything to begin with.

 

So how could you have been Christian like us, unless you grew up with that fullfilment we have spiritually, then lost it when you became an atheist?

 

So had you been a Christian before you would have said this instead; "the fullfilment I experienced in receiving the knowledge of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, connected me with God, like nothing could, but then I became atheist."

 

 

 

Phil: The only thing Oneness offers is a way to be loved by the moment and experience the gratitude for rediscovering my true self. And when you do this, you gain a clarity that transcends anything you can know intellectually.

A Christ like clarity. Another mode of knowing truth.

 

What truth is that? Anything built on an experiential philosophy is shallow, compared to the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who gave His life for us - the wonderful saviour, who already sums up all of the wonderful things which have a true foundation in God, in the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace, gentleness, self-control, patience. Things which are actually real, as part of God's creation, but shallow and false phantoms under atheism, for all such things would be the product of space-dust and would only have meaning to humans, and that love would just be a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

All  shallow philosophies float in space, because they have no foundation, clearly being invented. But the foundation of our faith is to know the Lord, the Creator of all things. Your philosophy doesn't point to the one Who founded the earth, or created the birds that fly, but is based on a falsehood, that a creation created itself. Nor is there any hope for an eternal value of life, which goes beyond this temporary system of things which is, "vanishing away".

 

What true hope does such philosophy bring? No offence but you juxtapose your belief with ours which gives me permission to dispute yours, since you trample on God. Such philosophy has no foundation. You say love, and experience. Is that it? Does that love come from space dust created by an accidental universe? What is "love" anyway, in that context of shallow experiential philosophlegm

 

Disclaimer; I am not attacking you. I won't try and stop you having your philosophy. But I do have the right to reveal all such beliefs for what they are when compared with the gospel, for they represent a shallow second best. Notice they are all the same - they are based on concepts which FLOAT, with no foundation - such as "love" but not knowing where it comes from, and they all are similar in that they tend to concentrate on some type of experiential notion, be it a peace or a meditative contemplation, or what not. Yet they don't have any root in that they seem to just be invented creeds that all serve the same purpose of attempting to fill the God-shaped hole the atheist has created in rejecting God. They offer no true meaning to life, no answers to life, and no hope. They don't answer why people exist either.

 

Those who are truly Christian, have something genuine to hope for - a wonderful hope, and the greatest and truest love which can only come from God, "for God is love". 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#37 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 April 2017 - 05:56 AM

I couldn't very well stay atheist. I knew there was something more that would actually be fullfilling.

you aren't alone.
close to 80% of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 April 2017 - 09:13 AM

 

 

what If: you aren't alone.
close to 80% of the people feel they are more than what physical laws can explain. 

 

I can appreciate that. I can even appreciate that a lot of people like Philosophik, is probably harmless in his beliefs and his motive may even be well-meaning.

 

But wouldn't you say that believing we are more than chemicals evolved by evo, isn't exactly congruent with an accidental atheist-universe, scenario?

 

Seems to me he is saying that he wants the spirituality that comes from God, but wants to ditch God.

 

"I am not what I am, I am not made in God's image, yet I seek more because I don't feel like I am evolved pondscum"

 

So I would say our argument from the bible - that we are spiritual beings made in God's image, is consistent with Philosophik's desire for spirituality, and not consistent with his atheism. Can he really then imply that "I've had the Christian t-shirt, been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and I can tell you that Christianity isn't it."

 

That's such a common argument they like to use. So predictable. But they have the wrong T-shirt, for they have a counterfeit, and I have a genuine adidas t-shirt, and they are saying that my genuine t-shirt is rubbish because their t-shirt fell to pieces.

 

Think about it - the person with the genuine t-shirt hasn't had his fall to pieces, so there must be something going on with those who say theirs fell to pieces - the obvious answer being that they were sold counterfeit t-shirts. (counterfeit religious versions of Christianity, like Catholicism, etc.)



#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 April 2017 - 12:09 PM

Hi Philosophik,

Nice to hear from you again! As you have probably figured out, we are thiking beings (creators). Intersting experience you have created for yourself.

The human mind is creative almost beyond belief. As a man thinketh so is he. We are made in the image of God. That means we are also made in the image of each other. I'm stuck with what you create for me and you are stuck with what I create for you! The question is what's it going to be. Number 1. I am glad you exist! We are equals and you are as valuable as I am to myself.

If you lookl around you will notice billions of other beings made in our image. It seems to me that our issues are how to interface with each other and not end up trying to kill each other. I sometimes refer to this as conflicts of creativity. We have chosen all to often to be adversary and make the things we create, ideas and the physical much more important than our fellow creators. If it's ever going to work, a fellow creator must be more important to us than what we can create. When we violate this axiom we produce the world we have around us.

The way we are designed (our software) triggerss emotions which are built in for certain ways of thinking. We are capable of desiireable and undesireable emotions. If we experiencee undesireable emotions we are thinking incorectly. We are self rewarding and selfpunishing beings by design.

I think our cumlative abuse is the abuse of free will and creativity. I think we are in a training program to learn to self-limit. Certain things we could create but best not because they have undesireable effects. Though we can create anything somethings are best left not created such as lies, hate, survival of the fit (which implies some are unfit), etc.

To worship somonme is to create affection for them. Affection is to a relationship what gas is to an automobile. Suppose I say I like you a whole ot (I would be worshipping you). Them, I will feel the emotion of affection which causes me to want to pursue an enjoyable relationship with you. The reason God tells us to worship Him is because doing so will cause us to like and want to be arround him. I create affection for just about everyone I meet. It's an enjoyable emotion to know you like someone.

 

One of the reasons I am not an atheist is because I have decided to accept all beings as I meet them.  Why limit who can exist? :)


  • philosophik likes this

#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 April 2017 - 01:35 PM

Goku said:

Any standard definition of religion has some form of "belief in God or the supernatural" as core to the definition itself (unless you are equivocating). Since atheism is the disbelief in such things, atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby; it's nonsense. Your assertion that religion is any belief or belief system is something you made up.

I think you understand my speech. Alleged atheists collect both beliefs and disbeliefs (like all humans do). The alleged atheist himself assumes the role of god as the final authority in the religion of atheism. I would doubt there could be anymore of a definite firm demand than No! How god like!
 

Why do you feel the need to control the language of others to the point of making up your own definitions which do not keep with the spirit of the standard definitions, or the etymology of the word, or how it is commonly used in practice? There is more to being a control freak than 'physically' forcing people.

I don't have controll over anyone but mysellf. In a democracy we have freedom of speech. Now you are showing your ignorance! Most of us realize that we have to process code to give it meaning. You give my words meaning. Therefore you have final say over whether you choose to do what I ask. It does not seem like you are controlled by me! How can I mentally force you to do anything you don't choose to do? Think dude! Think! Who dressed you this morning? Who fed you? Who controls you but you?
 

Atheists also have no holy texts, no holy teachers, no rituals, no sacraments, no holidays, no prayers, no place of worship or to gather, no commandments, and no doctrine whatsoever unless you want to count the definition of atheism itself as the one and only 'doctrine'; and if that is the only thing you can point to to say atheism is religion, than that is clearly grasping at straws.

Oh? Don't forget there are the holy books of Dawkins and Steve Hawking and the Atheist mesiah Charles Darwin! LOL

What have you got against intelligence?

 

I have never heard of an atheist say that they don't have a belief system, period. And I don't think most atheists would object to saying that atheism plays a role in their belief system, but what they object to is you and others who insist that atheism is a religion despite that it is not a religion according to any standard definition you can come up with. You have to twist the definition of religion in order to put atheism in it. Why do you insist on this level of control where you blatantly make up definitions? Is that not a sign of a control freak?

Yep I am a control freak. Just like you!
So who is controlling you? You would not have written the above prose if you were not conflicted in your mind by your beliefs (religion). Why do you wish to try to put yourself above the rest of humanity? Oh I get it. It's your relgious belief about needing to prove you are more fit than the rest of us!  LOL






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users