I believe I have disproven Atheism. Tell me, do you see any flaws?

[one_raven]

Or are you trying to imply that anything bizarre we can imagine must be true?

Isn't that the very basis of the Ontological Argument?

 

[Enterprise-D]

To answer the first one " Do you believe John Travolta is an angel?"
I wouldn't know.....it's not my area.

Side stepping. Why I asked you this is to show that a video of someone saying something does not make his claims or statements true.

By the way, why is that not your area? You believe a faceless entity to be god - with no proof...why can't you answer whether John Travolta is an angel?

I am not a scientist, it's more of a hobby.....but, you said I'm using current speculation of time flow, multiverses and possibly chaos theory to "fit my own beliefs".

I wouldn't know about such things....

Then why try to argue them?

But that doesn't make the scriptures any less real because of this, it only reveals the very reason for what I've found...

The fact that religion is a political juggernaut does not make scriptures any less false either

God hid the truth, revelation and knowledge between the lines so those who aren't "caught up" can't find it.

In which version or rewrite of the bible?

If what I said sounds like someones speculation or theories, that may lend more weight to what I'm saying because I've never read those theories and didn't "use them to fit my beliefs"
It's the other way around.

Semantics. You read the theories in this thread by the first poster Rokkon. As much as he posted anyways. Your brain thus grasped onto his straws of explanations and said "hey, this kinda proves what i want to be real".

To see the truth.....God, you have to become part of the truth.

Believe to see, to believe. Circular (il)logic. Been argued to death too.

"The water of life - once drank from, you will never thirst again"
"And in that day you will know I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, I in You and You in Me."
...
...
...

All of your post after this quote is blind faith in a book - one which accuracy is specious to be blunt. Blind faith is not proof of anything.

Sound like science fiction?
It gets better.
Haven't you ever heard, the truth is stranger than fiction.?
Someone knew what they were talking about.

It sounds like fantasy rather than science fiction. There's a difference. You're basing everything here on unverifiable quotations and old writings.

PS...John Travolta is most definitely not an angel.

 

[TheVisitor]

I don't know what assumptions you are making about me, but why not share them rather than playing some silly game of "I know your type".

I asked "by what authority" meaning, by what means do you come to that conclusion.
I was looking for something like, "by my own authority based on the following reasoning..."
I was not trying to back you into a corner or challenge you.
I was simply curious what you based your self-assured opinion on.

Rather you ignored the question, jumped to conclusions about me and decided to speak at me in a placating manner.

If you'd like to have a discussion, by all means, discuss.
If you want to play games, I'll not bother.

I didn't mean to imply anything about you.
I caught the way that appeared a little too late. Sorry.
I was more implying the similarity of the part I was being cast into for my stand on what I believe is God's word.
I want to do my best to answer you.
It was hard to resist playing into that and that quick I offended someone.
I see I need to slow down when on this subject, it really isn't a game.
Sorry again. Really.
Many of your posts have been very helpful and insightful to me.

 

[Cris]

One_Raven,

LOL.

The Church Father Tertullian (CE 150-225) said -

"And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible. (ref: De Carne Cristi)

A prime example of Christian "logic".

 

[TheVisitor]

Side stepping. Why I asked you this is to show that a video of someone saying something does not make his claims or statements true.

By the way, why is that not your area? You believe a faceless entity to be god - with no proof...why can't you answer whether John Travolta is an angel?
PS...John Travolta is most definitely not an angel.

You totally missed my pun there. Didn't you watch the movie?
I was side-stepping your question, yes, but at the same time implying something else.
I said it's not MY area.....(You're not laughing though)

I'm not laughing anymore either after what just happened with someone else an minite ago.

I still have to keep my "self" in check...
Thats the real enemy.
See....thats true for all of us.

 

[TheVisitor]

By what means do you come to that conclusion?.

How did I decide the bible was the truth?
Everything came together for me to come to that conclusion.
My understanding of what all the scriptures mean is still open-ended though in my mind.

Any one event I might mention may not be enough to convince someone else, but when put together it leaves no room for doubt.

I see another piece of the puzzle fall into place every day.
And another piece of doubt I may have had, not even realizing it falls away.

 

[KennyJC]

People with a strong delusional belief in Astrology will rationalize their delusion in a similar way. A superstitious mind will find reinforcement anywhere, and even fabricate it, so strong is their wish for it to be true.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

To One Raven: I never actually thought about the whole thing where we only just perceive time as flowing and God just made us think time flows. What I was trying to say is that God's existence is at an eternal constant where he has placed himself at various parts of the timeline of the universe's existence and tweaked them as he so pleased. Although your guess that it's like God editing a movie that he can see all of simultaneously does fit what I just said quite well.

To Athelwulf: The introduction of the "Which one is true" arguement into the "Are any of them true" arguement has caused much frustration involving other people being completely unaware of the whole point of the arguement that they are in. In other words, this arguement is about "is there a divine being(s)," and for the sake of not letting the previous sentence happen again, it will remain just that. When it is time to start arguing about which god we should worship, I will probably start a new thread.
To Cris: I really do need to become better at saying what I have to say, because so far I am getting nowhere, and I do think that part of that is my own inability to speak (or in this case, type) clearly.

 

[cole grey]

The word 'unpossible' communicates a sense that 'impossible' doesn't, I think.

I don't see that
un=not
im=not
but I still give "unpossible" a thumbs up for originality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...
but I still give "unpossible" a thumbs up for originality.

As well as the comedy factor

 

[TheVisitor]

It sounds like fantasy rather than science fiction. There's a difference. You're basing everything here on unverifiable quotations and old writings.

Unverifiable, old writtings....?
Is truth unverifiable?

This sounds like the rantings of a child with no respect for his elders.

If a book is compiled from all the wisdom learned in a man's life.
Does the fact a child can't understand it make it any less true.?

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

Unverifiable, old writtings....?

If such things that were written were true then we have no means to verify that.

Is truth unverifiable?

It is not truth that was the object it was the claims to truth that cannot be verified.

This sounds like the rantings of a child with no respect for his elders.

Or someone rightfully questioning unverifiable claims to authority.

If a book is compiled from all the wisdom learned in a man's life.
Does the fact a child can't understand it make it any less true.?

Strawman argument. Whether it can be understood is irrelevant, the point is that the claims of the book cannot be verified as true and it is not reasonable to believe them since they are so incredulous.

 

[TheVisitor]

It's not just a mater of experience and age.
We have a nature we are born with that is at enmity (war) with God.
Once you've drank from that water, your eyes open to the spiritual reality....
You see the battle taking place all around you and the lines that are drawn.
You can't explain it to someone who hasn't, they will ridicule it and it's not really their fault.
They are blind to that dimension.

Like one of those paintings with a figure intentionally hidden in a bush or something.
Once you see it, you always will.
You have become aware.
You are one with God, a part of God.
Life is passed through the body, and you are now a carrier of that life.

The real question becomes should you explain it to someone before they are ready to see.
If you help a chicken out of it's shell you'll kill it.
The person has to want to be free of their bondage.
Their own unbelief is what holds them bound.

You have to be led by that Spirit.
I probably shouldn't explain futher.

 

[cole grey]

Unverifiable, old writtings....?
Is truth unverifiable?This sounds like the rantings of a child with no respect for his elders. If a book is compiled from all the wisdom learned in a man's life.
Does the fact a child can't understand it make it any less true.?

The bible is not simply a book of wisdom - it is a much more complicated read, for a human at least, than that.
And the, "you must know the truth and the truth shall set you free, and you must be freed by God to see the truth, but you must accept God while you still don't understand any of it," is so meaningless, in practice, that it has become a statement of value only to those who already have experienced it - it is useless in a discussion. It is just like saying, "if you only knew how beautiful this part of the country is, you would agree that it is the best, but you don't, so just take my word for it, it is more beautiful than any place you have ever been." No wonder why so many people say, "yeah, whatever dude."

And yes, the truth IS unverifiable right now, by our current definitions and frames of reference, which doesn't mean there is no truth, or that it will never be revealed completely.

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

It's not just a mater of experience and age.
We have a nature we are born with that is at enmity (war) with God.

Imaginative fantasy.

Once you've drank from that water, your eyes open to the spiritual reality....

That’s emotionally derived fantasy. It’s isn’t real, you are deluding yourself.

You see the battle taking place all around you and the lines that are drawn.
You can't explain it to someone who hasn't, they will ridicule it and it's not really their fault.
They are blind to that dimension.

That is the nature of self-delusion, no one else can see your delusions except you.

The real question becomes should you explain it to someone before they are ready to see.

You’ll only gain support from the irrational, the gullible, and those similarly deluded.

If you help a chicken out of it's shell you'll kill it.
The person has to want to be free of their bondage.
Their own unbelief is what holds them bound.

There is no bondage, that is all part of your delusion.

 

[TheVisitor]

TheVisitor,

Imaginative fantasy.

That’s emotionally derived fantasy. It’s isn’t real, you are deluding yourself.

That is the nature of self-delusion, no one else can see your delusions except you.

You’ll only gain support from the irrational, the gullible, and those similarly deluded.

There is no bondage, that is all part of your delusion.

No such thing as bondage?

Tell that to the crackhead thats lost all their money, their job, and everything and everyone they ever loved.

I think they'd disagree.

 

[Shaitan]

I am that man, and I agree with Cris, it all part of your personal delusion.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I think Cris was referring to just the 'bondange' of logic that you alluded to. Drug abuse is another issue with its own psychological ramifications and is incomparable and of no use to this discussion.

At any rate...

You totally missed my pun there. Didn't you watch the movie?
I was side-stepping your question, yes, but at the same time implying something else.
I said it's not MY area.....(You're not laughing though)

I'm not laughing anymore either after what just happened with someone else an minite ago.

I still have to keep my "self" in check...
Thats the real enemy.
See....thats true for all of us.

...no I didn't watch the movie. Other than the fact that i know Travolta is not an angel, I don't really like him as an actor lol.

I totally missed your pun...irrelevant though - one thing I'll always maintain to ppl I interact with, keep your humor and try to ignore political correctness...I've a thick skin and I rather deal with folks as they are. Themselves.

 

[TheVisitor]

...no I didn't watch the movie. Other than the fact that i know Travolta is not an angel, I don't really like him as an actor lol.

I totally missed your pun...irrelevant though - one thing I'll always maintain to ppl I interact with, keep your humor and try to ignore political correctness...I've a thick skin and I rather deal with folks as they are. Themselves.

Never saw the movie....?
Where you been hiding the last ten years......a cave?

"Not my area" implying he's not "that" kind of angel.
Websters defines "Angel" as.......

1 : a spiritual being superior to humans in power and intelligence;
2 : an attendant spirit or guardian
3 : a usually white-robed winged figure of human form in fine art
4 : MESSENGER, HARBINGER
-both from Late Latin angelus, from Greek angelos, literally, messenger meaning;-one who bears a message or does an errand.

You see...so far as the type with white robes and feathery wings, that's not my area.
However, the other definition applies.
I am the one on this site defending the Word of God with irrefutable wisdom and power.
I'm just not "that" kind of angel.

Didn't see the movie......I can't believe it, surely you jest.
You have to have a common denominator to communicate.
Classic Americana sound-bites are a language in itself.

Maybe I should try mathamatics.......one beep for yes, two beeps for no.

"Beam me up Scotty, there's no".........oh, just forget it.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Defensive yes, irrefutable hardly.

Like I said, don't really like Travolta. Doesn't mean I don't know what the movie was about.

Yet again you've used a limited definition to defend yourself. While it is arguably my own fault for not specifying the celestial type, I'm pretty certain you knew what I meant with that angel dig. And I still maintain that if you "know" god exists, you should know whether someone is a celestial angel or not.

Ah well, we're getting off topic by now anyway.

And I wouldn't trust Scotty with a transporter! Give me good old O'Brien anyday.