Beth is attracted to ATM. She asks ATM out on a date. ATM isn't interested, maybe he isn't attracted to her or he's married. For whatever reason, he declines. Was Beth rejected? Yes.
When someone is rejected, they're prone to feel despair and frustration, typically she'll feel resentment and anger toward ATM, the rejection affected the dopamine and cortisol activity in her brain, which can actually cause physical pain. Some short term effects of this rejection are aggressiveness and antisocial behavior.
This type of emotional reaction can also explain why atheists are one of the most hated groups of people.
Beth is a theist and a billboard reminded here that atheists exist or perhaps Beth discovered that her acquaintance, ATM, is an atheist. Or, Beth is in an argument with ATM about the existence of God. Any one of these things can cause Beth to feel despair and frustration. Typically, she'll feel resentment and anger toward ATM. Because, of this, she may even exhibit aggressiveness and antisocial behavior.
As you can see, there is a fascinating parallel between a typical reaction of someone who is romantically rejected and a typical reaction of a theist who encounters an atheist. But, the parallel is practically shouted from the rooftops as the theist actually describes the atheist's disbelief as rejection. The atheist rejects God, they say.
It is no coincidence that the theist chooses the word 'rejection' because there is a disconnect between the inaccurate use of the word 'rejection' to describe the atheist position and the theist's reaction which coincides with the exact same symptoms of rejection, thereby compelling them to use that word even though it's inaccurate.
The inaccuracy can be easily seen from the romantic perspective, the analogy would look like this...
Beth tries to set ATM up on a blind date with Brenda (God). ATM doesn't think that Beth even knows Brenda or that she's acting as an agent on Brenda's behalf. Did ATM actually reject Brenda? No. What if ATM doesn't even believe that Brenda exists? Perhaps, Beth described her as being too attractive, described her personality as too perfect to be believable. So, if ATM doesn't believe Brenda actually exists, did he reject her even if she does exist? No.
All Brenda would need to do is show up and ask ATM in person for him to accept. Or, perhaps Beth described Brenda inaccurately. Is ATM rejecting the real Brenda or the inaccurate portrayal of Brenda which doesn't actually exist even though she does?
In all accounts, ATM is not actually rejecting Brenda and in all accounts, Beth would have no reason to feel rejected at all. So, why then does the theist typically show the classic signs of rejection and even misuse the word 'rejection' when encountering an atheist?
Because Brenda IS Beth. The believer IS God. Your relationship with God is actually a profound dynamic relationship with the self, with your ego. It is why God knows you so well, it is why His opinions are so often your opinions and why a different believer of the same God as yours can claim that He agrees with God's opinions, but not yours. It is why God can seem so very real to you, because He IS real, He IS you.
And, believer, before you deny this, ask yourself, are you truly in a position to be able to deny it?
This confusion of skepticism with rejection has caused the persistence of Christianity's fundamental flaw, a foundational flaw that has fatally detrimental implications for the religion. The religion itself is based on a false dichotomy, the notion that you must either choose God or reject Him. But, belief is not a choice, it's a compulsion beyond the realm of choice achieved through convincing arguments, evidence and trust.
I do not choose what I believe because I perceive it as the more attractive option, I'm compelled to believe what I think is true, whether I like it or not, because desirability is not a requisite of the truth. This takes honest introspection.
To truly make a choice, I must clearly be given the option. If I can doubt whether the option even exists, then the option hasn't been clearly presented to me, thereby preventing me from being able to make a choice.
An omniscient God would easily see this flaw in His system, but God isn't omniscient, He only seems that way, because somehow, someway, He knows exactly how to answer your doubts, He knows exactly how you think.
And, if you were paying attention, then you'd know exactly why that is.
Oh my word, I saw my name at least 50 times and I still couldn't make it thru the post.
Brevity is our friend!
Couldn't understand what I wrote there, either? It does require some thinking, not a whole, but some.
Thank God for Emile or I might have had to put some effort in there.
But, you won't put any effort into thinking. Emile failed. Thank God for her failure?
Actually, Im watching Star Trek. Im not sure why you chose me in this scenario, what ever it may be, but I haven't even been participating in this forum. Aren't there other Christians you enjoy pursuing? You are aware I think of you as a troll and the only way I deal with trolls is thru humor. Why don't you tell me a little about yourself so I can take you seriously. Are you a retired English school teacher? Are you male or female? Are you aware Im missing the end of Star Trek? Have you see World War Z cause MAN that was scary.
Sorry, but where do you get the notion this is about you? You certainly think quite highly of yourself.
Yes, but the fact is that you are the troll here, posting garbage verses and then running away when others start criticizing your evangelism.
Notice that you are now behaving exactly like a troll? Thanks for showing that behavior. Well done.
And there it is. Ok... nice talkin' with you again. See ya.
Ok Senor, I have now read the article to completion, although not the discourse between you and the lovely Emile. I understand your point of view... I never doubted your lack of faith and yes, that is certainly one way of thinking of it so there ya go.
I wonder though...is it rejection or is it lack of proof preventing belief in something with no supporting evidence...I don't know if I would say this is rejection...I would say this is pending proof, i'll reserve making a claim for anything other than what can be proven...
I can only speak for myself. I could never be interested in a woman that did not believe in God. Courting a woman who is not filled with the spirit of Christ would be a waste of time for both of us.
That's just an emotional response, exactly like the OP explains. You didn't even give it any thought whatsoever. You even went off on silly tangents of bedrooms, liars and crazy. You still believe this is about you, flattering yourself as opposed to responding to the points made.
Very interesting... I answered you with the same boundaries that you set up and you still weren't satisfied... well... I can't help you. You lack understanding. Im done.
No, you didn't, you made it personal and didn't actually respond to the points made.
I had to go get my daughter and I thought on my response to you. Maybe I owe you an apology. I really do see you as simply an antagonist and nothing more. I don't see you as a seeker or even someone who holds on to a "belief system". B/c of the way you argue and bicker, I have always assumed you, as I have said, to be a troll of sorts. But maybe there is something inside you... a seed maybe, that truly is trying to have a conversation and not just make accusations. Maybe you really didn't understand my response to your op. Let me try and simplify... I thought it was clear, but maybe it wasn't clear enough.
Back to the analogy of a blind date (Brenda) and God. Please try to understand what I'm saying.
I tell ATM, "I have a friend who is in love with you. She has admired you from afar for years and she would like to meet you. She is a virgin, beautiful, smart, fun, sexy, caring, loving... basically the perfect woman and I know you would be head over heels for her.
Now lets say ATM says, "There is no way I'm going on a date with her. I haven't even seen her yet. Why would I believe what *you say? Your description is too good to be true, you are making her up! You're lying!"
I explain that I know her very well and that she is truly amazing. You'd be insane not to get to know her.
(This is the part you need to understand. Don't take offense at it, it has nothing to do with you personally.) "You" say, "Present her to me in my bedroom this evening. I will decide if she is amazing or not."
Now the reason I used that example is b/c what you and Radman and others ask for is intimate. God has not shown His face on earth. He showed his back to Abraham... ABRAHAM! lol Do you understand? He is GOD, Elohim, the creator of Heaven and Earth, the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles. He is the Lion of Judah, the Sweetest Rose of Sharon, Jehova our provider... Do you know who you are talking about? Asking for parlor tricks and street names... argh! It's so frustrating for me... I have been trying to tell you about 'a virginal, beautiful woman who is in love with you, and wants to meet you, but you want her dragged to your bedroom as if she was a common prostitute?' Do you see the comparison I am drawing using your example of Brenda in place of God? God is HOLY. He is holy and He loves you and He has given you chance after chance after chance to simply seek Him. Just seek Him with an open heart and you treat GOD like a common magician. Faith may be foolish to you, but it is REQUIRED by God and you cannot get to Him without it.
We are not asking for anything intimate, we are asking for evidence, the only thing we have evidence of is the fact that the God you claim to exist needs us to believe without evidence. Like the door salesmen who told me I have to agree to buy the door before he tell me the price to get his best deal. The Easter bunny loves you and requires you to believe in him before he shows you he exist. Do you have any idea how incredible stupid that sounds? And yet you keep spouting it.
Yet you keep coming back...
- those who believe and state it are those who have evidence. How come you don't get that?
If you have the evidence why not share it? Most likely because you don't understand what evidence is.
Because evidence to me is not evidence to you.
And thats okay! To be more specific: God is the miracle of life and the joy within each of us. It is awareness of that which is greater than ourselves. It is the awareness of love within and without which encourages positivity, provides hope, sacrifice, bravery, ambition, determination, strength and the resolve to survive, thrive and eventually melt back into the sea of joy that is God. It is spirit. Is it light. It is not visible or tangible but the evidence is here within us and in nature.
Einstein was actually trying to come up with a formula for God! He sensed God, as most scientists do.
If it's not evidence it's just you saying something. I could say I have evidence that santa exists and talks to me, but I can't supply evidence, so you just have to trust me.
That stuff about Einstein is nothing but a lie as is the rest of your post and is completely irrelevant to the conversation and an attempt at an appeal to authority.
The evidence I provided is not tangible because the nature of God is spirit. How can that which is not tangible provide the tangible evidence you are seeking?
BTW evidence of no God/spirit within one is depression, boredom, attachment to things outside the self, blind hunger for power/ wealth, aimless amusements, no interests and no joy of life.
Spirits have never been shown to exist, so your evidence cannot be validated. That then would make your claim an unfounded assertion.
That begs the question, how can anyone know something exists when it has never been shown to exist?
Sorry, but that is entirely false and you know it. Saying those things only makes your assertion nothing more than an emotional outburst.
Which sense did Einstein use to sense God? The 6th one, called imagination?
He did not do his own computations. He used the mathematical know-how of others to carry out his work. So, yes it was his ability to imagine possibilities, (which he valued very much), which prompted his genius ... But no, contrary to your outlandish suggestion, the sixth sense is considered by all to be intuition.
But intuition, even if "all" consider it to be a sixth sense, is not a sense at all, and cannot sense anything. It can only correlate current observation with past history and experience, producing a possible conclusion. Not sense anything.
So how did Einstein sense God? Which sense did he use?
"Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovations in scientific discovery." wikipedia.
Intuition is direct perception of truth/truths. According to wikipedia, it comes through contemplating inwardly.
- essentially, as I contemplate these questions, thanks to you atheists, I am led to the understanding that *awareness* is the key factor in locating evidence of God. Awareness of that which is beyond the material realm of existence; awareness fueled by the sixth sense. The other five do nothing for locating direct evidence of God. It comes down to science. Whomever rejects intuition is rejecting science and therefore God.
Sorry, but no evidence of that, either. Another unfounded assertion.
No one is rejecting intuition, but it is clear intuition is not based on reason or rationale and is often wrong.
Sorry, but intuition and God are not the same thing.
Intuition leads to direct perception of God.
God is the intangible essence of joy, intelligence, creativity and love. How can these attributes be seen or touched? They can be felt/perceived within the mind, however. The sense of intuition is located within the brain between the eyebrows. The blind use this sense more than the sighted. I have heard that Stevie Wonder always knows when there is a beautiful woman in the room.
Intuition cannot lead to a direct perception of god as there is nothing there to perceive. Remember that god is undetectable, after all, and cannot be perceived by human senses.
Intuition may lead to imagination, which may lead to acceptance/creation of a god, but that is not perception or sensing that god.
And no, intuition is not located between the eyebrows. It is a function of many parts of the brain, including memory and thought.
Stevie Wonder may well know when there is a beautiful woman in the room; the blind use their other senses to an extent the sighted seldom understand. That Stevie could tell the difference between a beautiful and an ugly woman by merely hearing her enter is EXTREMELY doubtful, though, just as is the idea he can detect a beautiful woman but not an ugly one.
That is why intuition is often wrong.
Exactly, which is why they have nothing to do with gods.
Sorry, but that is entirely false.
No, your evidence is not valid because it cannot be validated.
Wrong. There is no evidence in us or in nature for gods.
Once again, believers are compelled to make up false stories about Einstein. Funny, how they keep doing that and are shown to be wrong every time they do.
Once again, you make it personal by projecting your own actions and shortcomings onto others.
You are just making up stuff to defend your position. No one said anything about lying.
No one said anything about bedrooms, once again, you are just making up stuff to defend your position.
Yes, we both understand your frustration for pushing your irrational beliefs on us, but that is exactly how Beth in the OP behaves.
Again, you are just fabricating stories to defend your position. None of what you say is in the OP.
Once again, you are behaving exactly as described in the OP.
Notice the behavior here. Beth comes onto this thread, does not address the OP, most likely because she doesn't understand what is being explained and is compelled to make up stories in order to defend her position, which is a position equivalent to the Beth in the OP. Once her fabrications have been exposed, she runs off because she has nothing to say, and never really did in the first place.
Atheists don't reject God. They love to ignore God. Who else could they love to ignore so keyboardingly?
In order to reject God once must actually know as truth He exists. I think an atheist rejects the notion of a God and the religion Christianity.
Nevermind the story that was told. The answer is simple (from my understanding). No, atheists do not reject God, period. As there is no evidence that God exists (outside of the beliefs of Christians like myself), you cannot reject something that you do not have evidence of the existence of. Now if Evidence of God (by the standards of atheists, whatever those are) is presented, there can be no denial of the existence of God (and the atheist would no longer be atheist, but a theist). At which point they can decide if they want to follow or not follow God. But they would cease to be atheist once proof is given of God.
Thank you for your honest post. Of course, the OP goes on to talk about God being the self and the ego of the believer, do you agree with that?
This is not the easiest question to answer without coming out of it unscathed either way as well as the lack of evidence of the existence of God, so I will try to answer it as best as I possibly can for myself.
The short answer to your question is yes and no.. It is yes that God is the ego of the believer. In the absence of proof of his existence, our idea of God is based on either what we have been taught (or told) to believe or (yes this is possible) what we have discovered for ourselves when examining the bible for ourselves and still believing but changing the way that we believe. I'm sure that the argument will be that indoctrination is what causes people to cling to a belief even if the way one believes may change.
On the other hand, I cannot say (at least in my case) that God is myself because I couldn't imagine myself doing some of the things that are written in the OT nor directing others to do some of those things.. But of course I guess this is because my thinking is too limited and I cannot fathom what God had to go through in his decisions . But of course If I were God things would be different and everyone would know I exist as well as what I want. But there are some principles in the bible that I would keep and make known.
That is because you not only do not believe everything in the OT, but have got your own personal version of the religion you follow, and that version aligns perfectly with your thoughts, as the OP explains.
That's fine. But, those principles most likely have little to do with supporting the existence of a God or even the religion as a whole.
A.K.A ego (which I thought I admitted to earlier) when I said it is ego.
I have never denied that. I have always stated that from what I understand from reading the bible myself (my silly ego again ) That if God is real (out of respect to you and the others) The bible calls on us to worship him and believe in him, but we don't need to depend on him for everything (in spite of what is believed).
I see no reason to worship ones ego, seems rather selfish and self centered. The bible calls on people to do a lot of things, that is why it causes so much conflict in the world.
Of course, you don't do everything the bible tells you to do. That's called cherry picking and is the epitome of hypocrisy.
It is also following the laws of the land (something else the bible tells us to do). There is a lot in the bible that quite frankly would get people who listened locked up for life (or worse). But as a Christian, I am supposed to follow the example that Christ set out during his life.. You know, helping others, try to live the best way you can, Do good things (which falls in with using your best judgment as to what is good). The NT stuff that a lot of people (on both sides) overlook in favor of focusing on all of the doom and gloom of the OT. But that's not really relevant to you given your lack of belief as well as your perception and perspective on the bible.
Well, as much as I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, daddy duty calls for a kid that just had surgery.. Until the next discussion.. Later
We don't need the bible to tell us that.
Again, we don't need the bible to tells us those things, we do those things because we have evolved compassion and altruism. And besides, people were doing those things long before the mythical Jesus was penned. For Jesus to take any credit for that would be plagiarist.
And so we sit and wait. So we ask ourselves, is it just wishful thinking?
All well and good ATM, but I think you start with a faulty premise. I don't know your history. Don't care really. However, many atheist posters identify themselves as once devout believers. They either did, or do, reject God. Now an atheist who never experienced belief wouldn't be in that category. That type may simply be fascinated with Beth.
Yes, they would be in that category. You haven't offered any reason or explanation why they wouldn't.
Well, if one believes in God and ceases to believe in God; a transitional period would certainly exist. Devout belief wouldn't simply disappear overnight. If the journey began because of some event they had expected, as a believer, to be miraculously different there would be a time where they would be, in their mind, rejecting God; possibly desperately hoping that God would step in and alleviate the cause of their doubt. It depends on the impetus behind the journey to atheism? Did they pray, to no effect? Did they lose a loved one? Did they suddenly stop having the feeling of something other wordly flanking their movements?
First, you have to accept that different people believe for different reasons. Therefor different reasons would cause them to question their beliefs. Emotional reasons would naturally cause them to express anger at God for not being there however they had once believed he should have been.
I'm sorry, but there are a few atheist posters who appear to be within that category.
But, if non belief was arrived at by a simple act of looking around at reality then it would be silly to assume it was a rejection of God. You can't reject something whose existence you can't detect. If you didn't expect him to be there, didn't find him there and decided he wasn't there in the first place; you weren't in need of him being there so the absence wouldn't be a problem.
The reason one moves from theism to atheism is not relevant to the OP.
Again, irrelevant to the OP.
But, you are talking about someone who became an atheist, you're not talking about someone who is still a theist, which is the point of the OP.
You said a theist accuses an atheist of rejecting God. You are attempting to show why. . The atheist rejects God, they say.
It is no coincidence that the theist chooses the word 'rejection' because there is a disconnect between the inaccurate use of the word 'rejection'
All I'm saying is that, for some atheists, this is not an inaccurate use of the word rejection.
But, you are failing to explain why. I can only conclude you don't understand the OP.
I understand the OP. And, maybe, for some, at times, under the right conditions, you've pin pointed a valid problem. But that doesn't describe every theist who comes to the conclusion that an atheist is rejecting God. I doubt it describes most theists who claim atheists are rejecting God.
Maybe, it is a good explanation of your relationship with Beth, so if that is the extent of the point for the OP; sorry for the intrusion.
Oh Emily, this was painful to read. I am rather surprised by this post, as it appears to be written by someone else.
I was once (when very young) a Christian, I believed what I was told or at the very least I gave the ones telling what to believe the benefit of the doubt.
There came a point when I started thinking, not should I reject the God I know exists, but is there a God? After a while I came to the conclusion that there simply is no God, much like when one realized there is no Santa.
Do you reject Santa, or the Easter bunny?
To reject someone or something you need to believe it exists. So those who worship Satan ARE rejecting God as they think God exists.
I do reject the notion that a God or any God exists, but I can't reject anything that doesn't exist.
This whole thinking thing is not over rated Emile, time to give it a try.
I have some sympathy with ATM's argument here. As I understand it he is attempting to show that the blanket term 'rejection of God' oft labelled at atheist is not entirely accurate. To choose to believe is by definition choosing to believe without evidence.
There are atheists such as ATM who have never been presented with a sufficiently brilliant argument to convince them. Thus they cannot be held accountable for the failure of Christians or indeed the failure of God to present himself to them. The idea that a loving God would condemn an atheist for choosing to use his God given brain is utter lunacy.
But ATM does not represent all atheists. There are those who once believed and for reasons personal to them no longer believe. But this boils down to the ability or inability to sustain a belief in the light on ongoing personal experience and observation. Again is it really a sensible idea to condemn one who walked away because they no longer are presented with evidence? No.
Nobody with half a brain would invest their life savings in a financial instrument without first seeing some supporting evidence that it will pay off. Why then should we demand people believe without the same degree of evidence demanded of a financial instrument?
Some believe here and others do not. Each one of us is wired differently. Some are more logic biased and others act more on impulse. Some are satisfied to believe based upon emotion but others are not. Would a loving father only accept the emos over the geeks?
Christians say that one cannot come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws them. And personally I think this must be true. So how can Christians in the next breath condemn those who have not been granted this grace?
Uh, the OP is about theists claiming that atheists reject God. Fyi.
Isn't that what I was talking about ATM?
Really? Not one person thought it was a bit pointed?
No one has actually addressed the OP, including you. Do you have anything of value to add or refute it?
No matter what I say, you attack... and if I walk away peacefully, you attack. You're not an easy person to discuss any subject with.
I did say that I understood the point you were making. I obviously don't see it the same way and didn't really have much more to add. I guess that's b/c I respect your right to believe what you want to about God... about Christians. It doesn't make it true necessarily, but you have a right to do and think as you wish.
You and I both know that is entirely false.
"Yes, run away, it is your strongest asset. You never once referred to the OP, but were instead compelled to come here and call me a troll when it is the behavior you yourself exhibited.
Does this sound remotely familiar? Why is you so cray cray?
Wow, so you completely ignore the fact you did not refer to the OP but instead called me a troll. Hilarious. You are one piece of work, Beth.
I'm curious Beth, do you write something and then in the very next moment completely forget what you wrote? It sure seems that way.
Have they condemned atheists? have they? when and where? They do not attack... only defend... according to what I observe here. Feel free to prove this observation shortsighted.... with proof/quotes showing attack mode by Christians.
So if God revealed himself physically and said, "Here I am," you would, of course, acknowledge His existence.
Who can argue with this?
No one would argue with that. So, when is God making his physical appearance?
That is a question which demands a universal truth be espoused.
Instead, I will answer like this: It is my understanding that God is a personal matter of belief based on one's own experience, comprehension, acceptance, study, acknowledgment and/or knowing.
It's a personal matter.
And that's as good as it gets, as far as I know.
Then, if a personal matter, it should be kept behind closed doors where it belongs and not out in public.
*Interpretation: It is my understanding that all personal matters should be kept behind closed doors. Since one's choice of religion is a personal matter, all religion should be behind closed doors.
*Comment: This is usually called a church. They do close those doors during the service. People who want to hear the sermon are within the church and the doors. It can be said that those who try to convert those who are not willingly in church, are out of place. Do the outreach ministers who try to help gang members help them? Do people who try to provide dinners for the homeless on Thanksgiving or Christmas in the name of a loving God help them? Did St. Francis of Assisi help Brothers and Sisters of Italy? Do people who try to help others in the name of a merciful, loving, God end up helping others. I would say Yes... for those who have receptive hearts. Thats all it takes. And yes, religion in these instances is a still a personal matter, even though it is not behind closed doors.
I suppose, if you would practice what you preached, there would be no appearance of hypocrisy in the request.
Yes, so awesome that you're both incapable of responding to the OP. So awesome.
*Note to self, contact Websters to redefine the word, "awesome"
I responded to the op... I told you I read it. I fully understood it and I understood your right to believe as you do... if you wanted further discussion, maybe you should clarify further about what you feel was misunderstood.
You did not respond to the OP nor did you understand it. That is obvious.
They say it's our delusions which make us happy. By my calculations, ATM must be one of the happiest men alive.
No, it is your posts here that show it is true.
Whatever... Im still highly disconcerted by the usage of my name linked to yours in that disturbing fashion... in any fashion really. Maybe you were talking about beth100... now that I could understand.
Again, you think far to highly of yourself. Don't flatter yourself, Beth.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Better grab a dictionary and review the definition of preach... oh wait, I just remembered you abhor dictionaries and define words to suit your agenda.
There are those who preach for and those that preach against.
ATM .... you do preach against a number of things.
Dictionary, Jerami, try using one for a change.
Deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church: "he preached to a large congregation".
You appear to be SOoo shallow minded! Can't see past the surface.
A parent can ... preach ... to their children against using alcohol, drugs, teen pregnancy etc etc.
You don't have any children of your own do you? Children cause parents to see in dimensions that you apparently can not see. When ever you escape the dimension you are on, you will see the world in a different light. ....
Edit ... then you will say to yourself ... I was so blind and now I see
God is called ego, here. Ego is called self by most. However, self is not called God. Therefore the argument that God is self is not logical, factual, true, or accurate. It is only a particular person's viewpoint that God and ego are interchangeable.
Accepting metaphysics is based on sensing invisible reality and rejection of metaphysics is based on not sensing invisible reality. If PJW walks through a grave yard, does PJW feel anything? if Bess walks through a grave yard, does she feel something? If Beth and PJW walk through a grave yard with Barbara (who has died), who would know her to be with them? Obviously the one who feels something and is sensitive to Barbara's invisible presence. Intuition makes all the difference. Now, some might argue there is no proof of intuition. It is only logical to deduct that exploring the ability for humans to sense what is beyond the physical plane is where the experiments and research must begin. If there is no such thing as intuitive abilities, then there truly is no proof of metaphysical realities.
But, I know very intuitive people.
And I myself am very intuitive...
Probably even PJW, but he doesn't acknowledge his ability.
Sorry, but that is not an argument, that is semantics.
No, "sensing invisible reality" is delusion.
Those are called "feelings", we all have them. They are physical.
Sorry, but intuition is often wrong and is often mistaken for mental disorders.
"Those are called "feelings", we all have them. They are physical."
How are feelings physical?
a. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily.
b. Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance.
c. Slang Involving or characterized by violence: "A real cop would get physical" (TV Guide).
2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.
Feelings are the result of biochemical reactions in the body brought on by stimuli of the senses, Beth.
Feelings themselves are not physical. Your reaction/your body's reaction may be physical, but the feelings themselves are a result of your emotional self.
Yes, they are, Beth, that is a fact. Sorry, that you don't understand anything scientific.
So, are you going to eventually respond to the OP or just continuing trolling?
How would you like me to respond? Tell me which part you think Ive missed.
You missed it all entirely. Read the OP and attack and refute the points made, just like we do with your posts.
But you believe them to be true... I believe Ive covered all the points addressed, if not in this thread... in others. What do you need from Christians ATM?
In other words, you have nothing to offer. Just say so, Beth.
I don't need anything from Christians, Beth. You are on this thread of your own accord, I didn't force you to come here. If you can't respond to the OP, then you obviously have some other alternate motive.
Alright, Ill do my best... but I can't imagine it's going to be very exciting for you. Ill try to make it controversial etc... I don't really have it in me... but hold on.
Perspective. A Christian might/will, of course, believe that Atheists reject God. If or when Christians think that God is a universal concept then they will believe anyone that doesn't accept this concept rejects God. Atheists do not believe there is a God so therefore they do not reject what they do not believe exists. For an Atheist to reject God they'd have to believe there is a God but then refuse to follow God. That is rejection. But then again, if an Atheist believes there is a God but they just choose not to follow God, they really wouldn't be an Atheist now would they? If God was/is proven without a doubt, hands down, without question and then a person still chooses not to believe God is real and/or follow God that would be rejection. Not believing in God is not rejection. I do not believe in Santa. Do I then reject Santa? No. I don't believe he exists. Now if I believed there really is a Santa or if Santa was proven to exist but I just simply chose to not follow Santa's tradition that would be rejecting him.
So no, Atheists do not reject God, in my opinion.
Ah, but if Santa were real and he made an attempt to bless you with gifts at Christmas and you locked your door and said "There is no Santa." Would you not be at the very least denying him? If God is real, then denial is rejection.
I would think that if God offered gifts of a form that Santa would give...You know something everyone can actually see...The Atheist would believe in God...But since that is not possible with Religion...The Atheist is still only not believing because of lack of proof...They are not rejecting...
That is the rejection of God. Not understanding that "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:17
Every child, all nourishment, our incomes.... they are a gift from God. To credit them to our selves is the denial of God.
Sorry, but scriptures does not answer the OP, that is the point of it.
All right, convince us that the God exists. Perhaps the problem is not with us but with believers not being able to supply the evidence we need?
lol... seriously? If you haven't heard the arguments by now, you will never hear them... which is why I seldom participate in these threads. I will tell you, with no disrespect Radman, I honestly believe that you do not *doubt God... you have *rejected Him. I believe if He were to stand on your doorstep with 10,000 angels, you would still find a reason to reject Him. I think there is something inside your heart... in your past... whatever, that has caused you to vehemently deny God. I believe that for most of the Atheists on these forums, b/c of the amount of time and effort you put into speaking out against a God that you say isn't even real. How pointless that seems to me... but that is just my assumption, that doesn't make it correct. I hope it is not. Your journey is your own and I wish you and the others the very best... truly I do.
And, you are still not participating in the thread. If you were, you would have addressed the points made in the OP.
But, you are not showing that in any way, you are simply asserting that in exactly the same way as I explained in the OP.
And, I addressed that as well in the OP, Beth. All God would have to do is present Himself in person, as it were, in order for us to accept Him.
Again, you are reacting exactly how I described in the OP. Exactly.
So you think I'm lying when I tell you I don't believe in any Gods? You think Atheists actually do believe in God they just don't like him so they reject him. And you expect me to believe you that you believe in the God of your choice?
It's only my opinion but I believe you know and understand the truth about the death of God by science, but only pretend to believe to sooth your mind and to fit in with the rest of the willfully ignorant. For how can a grown adult with the ability to reason and think critically still maintain the ridiculous idea of a sky daddy.
I think you know better, perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part.
I don't know... I never thought about you lying... I guess if there was any lying involved, that you had lied to yourself, but that's quite frankly not my call... not my business. That's just a supposition from the conversations we've had and I could be wrong. Im sorry if I offended you.
You most certainly did call me a lier when you told me I reject God after I've repeatedly told you I doubt the existence of God.
It is not rejection...It is non-belief.. there is a difference...
There is no tangable evidence that God supplies any gift...If you believe then you believe...If you don't.. then you don't...Accepting or rejecting is not part of this equation...
If one defines faith..."Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
So to use the analogy others have....Since you don't believe in Santa..does that mean you reject Santa...or does it just mean you don't believe in Santa because you have no proof of Santa...
But God is not real therefore we are not rejecting God. Do you reject Santa.
Great, so you understand that we are not rejecting any Gods. Let's move one then.
So everything is settled? Nothing left to argue? You will join us on a non-religious thread now?
Way to borring, I'm much more interested in the lies that some minds form to help them cope with reality.
You don't have to post on Hub Pages to enjoy that, do you? You could accomplish that in a room by yourself.
And here I didn't think you were speaking to me anymore ever since I pointed out the hypocrisy of Christianity. Remember when you were saying that we should all just love our neighbours and I asked you how you feel about loving your neighbours by making sure they have healthcare by paying for it, but you wouldn't answer my question as you would look like a hypocrite. Remember?
No. I don't remember. I don't read all of your posts. I'm not against health care for the poor. You must have me confused with someone else. Not surprising. Unfortunately, Obama care isn't health care reform. It's ignorant and will beggar this nation. Have you read any of it? Probably not. And you're Canadian, right? At what point did our business become your business? I don't hear American Hubbers complaining about what Canadians are doing. Why is that, do you think? And don't say because Canada is perfect because, seriously, we'd all know that to be just another delusion.
I'm not talking about American's vs Canadians, I'm talking about Christianity and it's hypocrisy.
Wow, I didn't know you were a Tea Party member. So, bringing affordable health to those who can't afford it will beggar this nation?
You apparently didn't pay attention. The reason people don't have health care is because they can't afford health care . How does forcing them to buy it, or fining them for not buying it solve the problem?
No one thought about the American people during negotiations. No one consulted the American people during negotiations. They made sure Congressmen were happy. They made sure insurance companies were happy. Drug companies had to be appeased.
Have you noticed how many companies are getting rid of full time workers and replacing them with part time? The little people are the ones who suffer and do you know what they will get for their troubles? Fines.
So laugh. Leave your head in the sand and post pointless drivel. It doesn't help the people who needed help and won't get it.
Well, why not offer a solution? I know you want all people to have heath care as it's part of your love your neighbour motto, so what would be the right thing to do?
Well, sure. I suppose I would be listened to and everything would just fall into place because I spoke.
I guess, the first thing would be for America to stop footing the bill for medical research. The drug companies would have to get citizens of other countries like, let's say, Canada to pay their fair share. That might get one of the monkeys off our backs. Then, we'd have to make the drug companies stop advertising drugs on TV and paying the doctors handsomely for prescribing them. Did you know that the incident rate for any illness or malady rises in geometric proportion to the advertising for the remedy?
Then we'd have to cap medical costs. Did you know that, right now, the poor and uninsured pay ten times more than the insured for similar procedures.
We'd have to have doctors prove procedures were for the benefit of the patient. Not experimental procedures. Stop experimenting on terminal patients while expecting them to not only suffer the consequences but also foot the bill.
And medical schools should be free and open to anyone who can pass the entry exams. More doctors while also capping rates charged per visit and procedure. And doctors shouldn't be able to pay their way out of servicing the needy. They should have to take a percentage of patients who are uninsured and charge them commensurate with their income.
For a start. Then, average people should be involved in any discussions on what should be enacted that affects average people. The politicians appear to be too far removed from the reality we live in. They don't seem to understand the trials of life in the middle and lower classes. We have suffered a reduction in our standard of living. We don't have the funds to support reform that doesn't take our struggles into account. In order to have universal health care they have to find the fat in other areas and reduce spending there. But, they can't. They are too busy greasing each other's palms and fattening their wallets. Posturing for the cameras and ignoring we the people.
I have to give it to you on this one, Emile. You have some good ideas.
Actually a good friend of mine is a biologist involved in medical research. Do you really think the U.S. is the only place where that happens?
You are talking about government regulations which is what happens up here and is the reason are Canadian banks were not involved in the credit crunch and is precisely how our healthcare system works. The government up here also regulates what big pharma can do so they don't take advantage of people in need. Do you have any idea how many bus loads of elderly Americans come up here by the bus load to by the same drugs they sell in the states at a much reduced price. Actually our seniors pay almost nothing for medication.
I'm not saying our system is better than yours (ours is not perfect), I'm saying you just described ours.
I wouldn't advocate modeling our health care system on yours. I've heard too many horror stories. And, yes Americans pay too much for medicine. You can certainly claim some high ground because your government keeps a reign on costs, but research is expensive and if the drug companies can't make money hand over fist with new developments research would grind to a standstill. Thank an American for the next life saving drug. It's profits expected from this country that keep drug companies starry eyed and moving on.
So us Canadians should thank America for:
the discovery of parathyroid hormone,
the Montreal procedure for epilepsy,
the polio vaccine,
the cardiac pacemaker,
the electric wheelchair,
radiation in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease,
the Salter Operation,
the discover the hemopoietic stem cell,
the discovery of calcitonin,
the first childproof medication cap,
I'm not even up to 1970 yet Emile,
Ignorance combined with arrogance!
Should I mention.
the islet cell transplant,
A vaccine for E. coli,
Dr. Jeremy Jass identifies a new hereditary form of colon cancer,
Dr. John Dick finds a way to destroy leukemia stem cells responsible for recurrence of the disease,
Decoding the breast cancer genome,
JX-594 for cancer,
Yeah, sure you have. Where did you hear them? Fox News? Are you keeping tabs on the Canadian health care system and those horror stories are making front page news on a regular basis? Hilarious. You believers will make up anything.
LOL. Is that what you think is going on?
Yup, typical Tea Party rhetoric.
Are you daft, or do you simply throw out mud hoping it will stick?
You are obviously too ill informed to listen to, or on second thought; I suppose this is simply a continuation of your typical stand which involves not thinking and toeing some idea someone you think knows what they are talking about suggested you say. Tell those who pull your strings my response is... Although, we both know you've never met the idiots you appear to think deserve your devotional display of regurgitation.
Sorry Emile, but it is you who is woefully misinformed, as usual. And, it would appear you are only nodding to the Tea Party nonsense.
I'm related to a tea party idiot. I've heard their drivel also. Sorry, your mud isn't sticking.
Tell me though. If people can't afford health care and are forced to buy it, or are fined for not buying it...what are they to give up in order to find the money? Food? Housing? What?
There appears to be a disconnect between reason and responsibility here. We are allowing politics to manipulate us like marionettes. They don't care about you ATM. Neither party. It's a game. Our school system is attempting to go to a four day school week. Do you know why? So that the lowest pay grades and the menial workers will be taken off of full time. Denied benefits. And that is typical. The grocery stores have fired all full time workers. Sure, those jobs probably suck but they were jobs. There is no give and take anymore. It's all take. And if we don't draw a line in the sand soon all of us will be slaves to the system both parties have allowed to flourish to the detriment of the most needy among us.
Open your eyes. Stop being manipulated. Money and profit are not gods to be worshipped. People matter and every time we turn our back on anyone, I don't care how far below we think they are on the economic ladder; the closer that callous disregard is to us. You can laugh and think you're safe and have nothing to worry about, but everyone who is allowed to fall because we refuse to work together to build a strong safety net is tied to all of us. That will bite us all in the butt one day and you may regret your refusal to expect compromise and reason.
Wow, Fox News must be your one and only source of information.
Never watched it. I do listen to NPR and read the printed news. Sorry. Again, as usual, you are completely off base. Not surprising. Your need to scoff outweighs the ability to think for yourself.
Emile R, thanks for sharing your viewpoints. I, for one, appreciate them.
This seems very childish Radman. It seems as if you are begging someone to fight with you. You are doing up your best to drum up business... relax. You're putting so much effort into bickering that you're blood pressure's going to go thru the roof. It's ok if we disagree. It has been the case for thousands of years... this is a drop in the bucket. Breathe.
How rude, not only do you want to tell me what to think you also want to tell me when to breath.
Well, only if God is proven and is not just a concept that some believe. If God is proven, like say if God came from the heavens and proved his/her/it's existence, yet then one still denies God exists, that would be rejection yes, but only IF God is proven. If God remains unproven and remains a concept that some people choose to follow, that belief in God does not prove God exists, it just means that some choose to follow what is still a belief not a proven fact. Denial can be rejection but only if what is denied or rejected can be proven.
Intuition is a factual observable phenomenon. All humans have this ability to one degree or another. After we die we have bodies of light. We are spirit with spiritual attributes even while encased in the human body. It is easily observed that atheists reject or ignore or take for granted the omnipresent spirit commonly referred to as God that we are we are all part of. Furthermore, they believe that having sex with the same sex and marrying the same sex is perfectly fine. They believe in murdering newly formed bodies/souls. They believe science is somehow unconnected to an intelligent design. They have the right to their beliefs of course, but others have the right to their beliefs too. It just depends on the side of the fence one chooses. I'm on the side of intelligent design, energy/light and love.
Each to thier own.
"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference and/or the use of reason. The word intuition comes from Latin verb intueri which is usually translated as to look inside or to contemplate. Intuition is thus often conceived as a kind of inner perception, sometimes regarded as real lucidity or understanding. Cases of intuition are of a great diversity, however processes by which they happen typically remain mostly unknown to the thinker, as opposed to our view of rational thinking.
Intuition provides us with views, understandings, judgements, or beliefs that we cannot in every case empirically verify or rationally justify." ~ wiki
That is obvious baloney. There is no evidence whatsoever for that claim.
That is false, there is no evidence for gods, hence we are not part of something that has never been shown to exist..
It is perfectly fine. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Again, entirely false, there is no evidence of that claim.
No, we understand science is not connected to intelligent design.
Yes, you are free to believe in false ideas and claims that have no evidence to support them.
Love has nothing to do with intelligent design.
No it's not. Most good decision require thought.
Can you back that up with evidence.
I'm not sure all Atheists believe that, they should, but they may not.
Complete ignorance and lies. I for one am an Atheist who doesn't like abortion.
I'm on the side of love, you are judging others who you claim to love. If people like you were left to run the world we'd be right back in the middle ages, burning witches. Trying to meddle in others business rather than love them for who they are?
as I said. each to their own. just remember: collectively, the majority, in the end, rules.
Luckily for those on the side of the light, the more the atheists argue, the darker their side looks.
But, you are not part of the majority, you are actually part of the minority.
Perhaps you are telling the truth here. But the present time is not what counts. Time will tell. Which is why I keep keyboarding. Strangely I feel I have a mission. I actually think that I can bring others to the side of the light through exposing my understanding which is based on very credible sources.
(I keyboard for those who might be interested in the Truth according to the ancient wisdom of India. Jesus brought that ancient wisdom to our modern times during a period of great ignorance regarding spiritual understanding. He alone has brought the world to the point of civilization that we have today. And though society/mankind/the world is not yet perfect, that is certainly not HIS fault. It is one thing to throw out the bathwater. It is another to throw out the baby! Cut the baby some slack, I say!
PS The world will never be perfect. Only the individual can be saved from ignorance of the Truth
and that is good enough.
Just my understanding based on very credible sources.
I guess that's why homosexuals can now marry in the U.S.?
You do understand that Atheist make up at least 20% of North America and growing which is pretty much on par with major religions.
The side of the light? Really, your on the homophobic, finger pointing side.
...on the side of intelligent design. Homosexuality is pointless, therefore not intelligent. They have deviated from the original blueprint. They are still loved and accepted, however, as all sinners are. He who is without sin throws the first stone, after all.
He who does not agree with my opinion and the way I see it, just ignore it!
On the other hand, by all means, take all the rope you need!
So why are you throwing stones? You point your finger, call them deviants and sinners and then say, but who am I to judge. You just judged sister.
Sorry, but your irrational beliefs and pointless threats have nothing to do with the OP.
by Rishad I Habib6 years ago
Is there any logical distinction between Faith & Blind Faith?? Is faith & blind faith the same thing by nature?? Is there any logic that can counter your faith?? An atheist, as we know is open to new dogmas,...
by Cattleprod Media6 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
by Mark4 years ago
For those who are believers...Are you a theist or gnostic? Do you believe in God (Theist) or do you know there is a God (Gnostic)For those who don't believe...Same question but with the "A"...Just curious of...
by twingwiri6 years ago
As a fellow human being,i want to ask if we could exist without a belief of something o one greater than ourselves.I believe if there was no God we'd have to invent Him.
by David Hinerman24 months ago
I have been trying to find a term for someone who is neither theist, atheist, or agnostic. For the longest time, I have considered myself an agnostic, but I'm not sure if that's the best definition. To me, a more...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.