Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Evolution Delusion

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames. He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times. What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames.

How exactly does evolution rely on survival of some random scientist? If anything Dawkins makes evolutionists look bad. He is kind of a jerk.

He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

You could make that claim about any high profile person. You could make that claim about Ken Ham the creationist. You could make that claim about Barack Obama or Ted Cruz. Problem is that you have to prove it.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution

Actually it supports evolution very well. The fossil record shows an ordering from less complex to more complex. It shows transitional fossils in the right places and the right order for land animal, bird, mammal, whale, horse, and human evolution. We have found dozens of transitional species. Evolutionists like the fossil record so much they dig in it like crazy.

that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

Actually he said both things in the same book not at different times. What he was saying is that the fossil record matches evolution so well and it would be so easy for the fossil record to disprove evolution if evolution was wrong, yet it doesn't. He also said that the genetic and observational evidence for evolution is so strong that we don't even need fossils to demonstrate evolution. The fossil records add to the massive evidence for evolution. Saying that he has abandoned the fossil record is a strait up lie. He uses the fossil record in his most recent book on evolution. I read it.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times. What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.

Craig really doesn't contest the theory of evolution. Dawkins doesn't debate creationism because he is a stuck up arrogant jerk and a poor debater. Many evolutionists do debate creationists however 2 hour debates are not enough time to fairly present either sides of the debate. The arguments for evolution are complex and rely on a lot of complex anti-intuitive scientific ideas.
Looncall
Posts: 459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 8:45:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames. He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.



http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times. What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.

Creationist-style argumentation again. You find some nut-case somewhere, anywhere, who wrote something, anything, that agrees with you, and you think that clinches your case. You ignore the contrary opinions of the vast majority of experts who disagree with you and you think this entitles you to tell bare-faced lies. It is to laugh!

I suppose being used to arguing from some so-called holy book has destroyed your capacity for honest debate.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

How exactly does evolution rely on survival of some random scientist? If anything Dawkins makes evolutionists look bad. He is kind of a jerk.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You certainly are. I think Dawkins is a great educator of science and a wonderful polemist. I don't always agree with what he says outside of his area of expertise. But that's all right and to be expected. It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:07:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Argument from authority.

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames.

Argument from authority #2.

He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

Ad Hominem and Poisoning the well.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.

Unsupported assertion.


http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

Unsupported assertion and irrelevant.

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Straw man factual error and quote mining. Richard Dawkins said specifically that we don't need the fossil record. He wasn't dumping fossil evidence nor was he saying that they had none. He was simply saying that we didn't need it at all, and it was simply a bonus that we did have fossils.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times.

Anecdotal evidence, and source please.

What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.

So in one post, you committed 8 fallacies and 2 fundamental errors. Well done. Keep up the stupidity.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected. News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science! Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.

Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-
You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!
All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.
Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias. The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.
I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that. I'm an extremely perceptive man and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms. When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.
To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality. The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding , unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:50:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

Factual correction, Bronto: Berlinski worked briefly in a molecular biology lab, but is not a biologist, biochemist or an accredited scientist of any sort, and has no significant peer-reviewed scientific publications that I've ever seen (and I looked, a while back.) He is in fact, a philosopher and mathematician serving as a creationist shill, who routinely allows his credentials to be misrepresented to an ignorant laity, such as you yourself exemplify.

Notwithstanding that, it would be entirely appropriate for biologists to disagree with evolution if they saw contrary evidence, or conceived an alternative, better model, and for scientists to thrash that out in discussion and if necessary, in hypothesis, experiment and observation. That would be business-as-usual in science, and not a sign of a model failing.

Berlinski isn't doing that -- he's just writing sabre-rattling rhetoric really meant for people who aren't scientists -- but it'd be fine if someone credible did.
Looncall
Posts: 459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:51:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected. News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science! Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.


Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-
You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!
All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.
Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias. The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.
I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that. I'm an extremely perceptive man and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms. When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.
To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality. The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding , unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

Nah, we just refuse to waste our time with imaginings.

There is no need for gold gilding, lily painting or violet perfuming; reality is wonderful as it is. There are fewer things in the world than are contained in your philosophy. (sorry Bill!)
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:54:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 10:25:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
"Is there anything that could change your beliefs? "

Ken Ham, Creationist, heads Answers in Genesis

https://www.youtube.com...

Of course, post some videos of a couple dummies, you know not every theist are eloquent in elaboration! but then again not every atheist is efficient in thinking either.

The reason Theists are reluctant to just toss aside their beliefs is because their beliefs are BASED upon evidence, even though you wouldn't believe it, just not the utilization of evidence atheists use to justify their delusion.
Spirituality/religion is the study and examination of spiritual reality, so there must be evidence to the contrary to change or replace something. So really the question reads like this...... " Is there anything that could change your beliefs contrary to the evidence? "........and of course that's why you have that long pause after the question, because you are essentially asking a nonsensical question, you are asking the person would they change something they have concluded is true based upon perceived facts. How quickly would you answer the question...."would you ever change your belief that your mother exists?"........pause......pause lol.
But of course not all theists are free in their minds either or are their beliefs based upon actuality, you have the robots and impressionable people in religion as well but I'm speaking for myself, in order for me to change what I believe I need to see the evidence to the contrary, however the "evidence" in my scope of reality is much wider than in materialism or atheism, spirituality is of a different nature for it is not pinned down to merely the physical. So the utilization of examination goes beyond just the physical and natural, it goes in to the spiritual dimensions and that is not compatible with atheism or carnality.
So the question as to whether or not there is anything that would change my beliefs becomes a difficult question to just answer in a single word or moment, it takes a moment of reflection and consideration of all things involved.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:56:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:51:24 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected. News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science! Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.


Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-
You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!
All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.
Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias. The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.
I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that. I'm an extremely perceptive man and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms. When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.
To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality. The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding , unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

Nah, we just refuse to waste our time with imaginings.

Yes, another one of your labels, thanks for confirming that.

There is no need for gold gilding, lily painting or violet perfuming; reality is wonderful as it is. There are fewer things in the world than are contained in your philosophy. (sorry Bill!)

Why not experience the world in it's fullness and entirety? if you want just one aspect of it that is your choice, feel bad for ya...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:57:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected.

You provide evidence that existence outside the natural realm is even possible, that indeed supernatural phenomena exist, and, look and behold, you will start seeing atheists accept it.

But what you would like to have is people accept it aprioristically, without you submitting any sort of evidence. Sorry, standards have become higher than that.

News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science! Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.

You are jumbling up concepts. In our everyday lives, nobody calls upon the full-fledged scientific method in order to conduct themselves. People trust each other, gauge reputation, resort to intuition, opinion from third-parties, etc. But when the stakes are higher, say, a doctor tells you prostate cancer has awarded two more months to live, you react and adjust accordingly and ask for solid evidence. You may seek a second opinion from another expert, you perform additional medical exams, you go through the medical literature yourself. Surely, you do not blindly and merely put faith on the gentleman who carried the bad news.

When it comes to the big questions, the origin of life, Whether God exists or not, etc., naturally, we should be extremely demanding and ask for evidence that is proportional to the extravagance of the claim being made.

Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-
You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!

I see you're butthurt. I certainly would understand why. Can't be easy watching a never ending trail of defeat, debate after debate after debate.
Deal with it.

Matt Dillahunty himself has stated on many occasions he disagrees with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on a number of topics. I, for one, think Hitchens was one of the greatest polemists and yet in at least one occasion I was in frontal disagreement with him. Please, have the decency to contrast this with what happens in organized religion.

All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.

If it's propaganda then you should have no trouble dismantling it. Have a go at it.
Name one of such strawman arguments.

Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias.

Clearly, you know nothing about epistemology, which, of course, doesn't surprise me. Clearly, You do not know the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism, which is what Science subscribes to.

Learning the rudiments of a debate that's been going on for centuries now would spare you impending embarrassment.

The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.

When you provide evidence to substantiate alleged knowledge, it will be evaluated. Not before that. You also have to explain why irreconcilable theistic views claim that very same sort of knowledge. Which one of those contradictory doctrines are you going to subscribe to if they all claim to have obtained the sort of knowledge you're talking about via the very same methods you're talking about?

I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

Name one.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that. I'm an extremely perceptive man and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms. When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.
To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality. The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding , unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

Verbose, self-serving, manure.

You're an extremely perceptive men? How humble and generous of you to say so.
Provide the evidence, we'll discuss it.

Meanwhile, you pep talk yourself into bliss and pat yourself on the shoulder if that gets you through the day.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:02:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:56:37 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Why not experience the world in it's fullness and entirety? if you want just one aspect of it that is your choice, feel bad for ya...

This si the sort of supreme arrogance some theists stoop down to, that they would presume to know whether or not a complete stranger to them is appreciating the fullness of the world, and that they alone can and indeed are appreciating the fullness of the world.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the ignorance some theists proudly parade and their arrogance. Of course, they also have the gal to sweep-call atheists arrogant.

Oh, how the irony escapes you.
Looncall
Posts: 459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:02:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:54:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:25:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
"Is there anything that could change your beliefs? "

Ken Ham, Creationist, heads Answers in Genesis

https://www.youtube.com...

Of course, post some videos of a couple dummies, you know not every theist are eloquent in elaboration! but then again not every atheist is efficient in thinking either.

The reason Theists are reluctant to just toss aside their beliefs is because their beliefs are BASED upon evidence, even though you wouldn't believe it, just not the utilization of evidence atheists use to justify their delusion.
Spirituality/religion is the study and examination of spiritual reality, so there must be evidence to the contrary to change or replace something. So really the question reads like this...... " Is there anything that could change your beliefs contrary to the evidence? "........and of course that's why you have that long pause after the question, because you are essentially asking a nonsensical question, you are asking the person would they change something they have concluded is true based upon perceived facts. How quickly would you answer the question...."would you ever change your belief that your mother exists?"........pause......pause lol.
But of course not all theists are free in their minds either or are their beliefs based upon actuality, you have the robots and impressionable people in religion as well but I'm speaking for myself, in order for me to change what I believe I need to see the evidence to the contrary, however the "evidence" in my scope of reality is much wider than in materialism or atheism, spirituality is of a different nature for it is not pinned down to merely the physical. So the utilization of examination goes beyond just the physical and natural, it goes in to the spiritual dimensions and that is not compatible with atheism or carnality.
So the question as to whether or not there is anything that would change my beliefs becomes a difficult question to just answer in a single word or moment, it takes a moment of reflection and consideration of all things involved.

Thanks for your interesting and helpful post.

My question is, what do you do when your spiritually-derived conclusions are contradicted by what is found by observation?

If the bible says 6000 years, what do you do when faced by observations yielding billions of years? Even if you prefer the thousands, the billions don't go away.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:14:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:54:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Spirituality/religion is the study and examination of spiritual reality

The simple fact that there are so many religious variants out there in the world and , according to you, they all "study" and "examine" reality and yet reach vastly different and often contradictory and even irreconcilable conclusions, should tell you just how deeply problematic that assertion is.

Just to tackle Christianity, it currently consists on some 33 000 different denominations which wouldn't be able to reach a doctrinal consensus even if held at point blank range. Collectively, they wouldn't agree on the minucia of doctrine, let alone the big issues such as the nature of God, the nature of Christ, is there such a thing as an immortal soul?, Does the devil really exist? Is hell literal? Do supernatural phenomena exist and have spiritual roots? What's the antura of the spiritual domain?, etc.., etc.,

Therefore, your assertion is so compromised by straightforward facts that I eagerly await further substantiation from you.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 2:58:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
No you can't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 4:32:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:07:53 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Argument from authority.

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames.

Argument from authority #2.

He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

Ad Hominem and Poisoning the well.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.

Unsupported assertion.


http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

Unsupported assertion and irrelevant.

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Straw man factual error and quote mining. Richard Dawkins said specifically that we don't need the fossil record. He wasn't dumping fossil evidence nor was he saying that they had none. He was simply saying that we didn't need it at all, and it was simply a bonus that we did have fossils.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times.

Anecdotal evidence, and source please.

What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.

So in one post, you committed 8 fallacies and 2 fundamental errors. Well done. Keep up the stupidity.

Just to be clear, I do not claim that Berlinski is wrong because of his CV or because he works fro the Discovery Institute, a creationist organisation. He is wrong because his points are hollow and amount to fallacies.

Because he works there, he has a vested interest and thus the response to his smear campaign against Dawkins should include a reminder that he too has a personal interest in the debate and as such he should drop the Ad Hominem and move to real scientific objections.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

Or. more precisely, he was a research assistant at Columbia U, he was never a biologist, let alone a molecular biologist, let alone a secular molecular biologist. He is famous for being in the Discovery sh1t talk tank and that's about it.

http://youtu.be...

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames. He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

So, it's actually not about Berlinski arguing the postulates of evolution.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.

Or, more precisely, that is utter pigs wallop.



http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

Both of those points are entirely valid and do not contradict one another, reading comprehension skills will easily show that.

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times. What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.

Meyer is also a philosopher, which is what his PhD shows. That's what he argues, he does not argue from the position of a scientist.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 5:03:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected.

That is not true, nothing has ever been shown to exist outside of nature, there's nothing to reject other than the specious claims of believers.,

News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science!

What knowledge or information? Be specific.

Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.

Show us one atheist here who has ever made the claim that atheists are free thinkers?


Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-

Why is that ironic?

You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!
All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.
Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias. The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.
I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

You make the claim of chatting with atheists for a decade, yet you lie about everything contained in those chats.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that.

How so? Explain?

I'm an extremely perceptive man

Not even by a long shot.

and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms.

What knowledge, exactly? Be specific or stfu.

When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.

Of course, because that is the only thing that has every been shown to exist: nature. You yourself would be lying if you knew otherwise, and you have most certainly made that lie on many occasions.

To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality.

There are no other forms of knowledge and truth other than what we observe in nature.

The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom

That is exactly the blatant lie you constantly repeat over and over.

any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding

And, since the "spiritual dimensions/realms" are all in your head, the only thing scientists can have a field day with is your mental condition.

unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

You are always free to show us the "spiritual dimensions/realms" but you can't, because they only exist in your head as delusions.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 8:27:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 4:50:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
David Berlinski is a famous secular molecular biologist who does not believe in Intelligent Design, and does not believe in evolution.

http://youtu.be...

Berlinski went after Richard Dawkins for intellectual dishonesty and believes that if Dawkins died today, the theory would be shot down and crash in flames. He believes that Dawkins has so much Atheistic dogma writ inside of him and so much money pouring in, that he will say and do anything to support his reputation and cash cow at this point, whether the theory is correct or dead wrong. It is irrelevant to him. This is about the cash and the prestige.

The fossil record is so contrary to darwinian evolution that Dawkins has been forced to retreat from it.



http://www.darwinthenandnow.com...

Dawkins, who once said that if one fossil was found out of place, evolution would be in danger, was forced to now say,"We don"t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact."

-Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin"s own words, "my theory would absolutely break down." The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin"s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the" Darwinism era.

Stephen Meyer has challenged Richard Dawkins to debates on Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins said "I do not debate creationists", which is false. I've watched the debate between he and William Lane Craig a million times. What's the difference? Craig is a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist.
Either you are lying or you are just parroting lies from creationist websites. Berlinski is not a molecular biologist! His phd is in philosophy.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:53:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:02:25 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:54:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:25:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
"Is there anything that could change your beliefs? "

Ken Ham, Creationist, heads Answers in Genesis

https://www.youtube.com...

Of course, post some videos of a couple dummies, you know not every theist are eloquent in elaboration! but then again not every atheist is efficient in thinking either.

The reason Theists are reluctant to just toss aside their beliefs is because their beliefs are BASED upon evidence, even though you wouldn't believe it, just not the utilization of evidence atheists use to justify their delusion.
Spirituality/religion is the study and examination of spiritual reality, so there must be evidence to the contrary to change or replace something. So really the question reads like this...... " Is there anything that could change your beliefs contrary to the evidence? "........and of course that's why you have that long pause after the question, because you are essentially asking a nonsensical question, you are asking the person would they change something they have concluded is true based upon perceived facts. How quickly would you answer the question...."would you ever change your belief that your mother exists?"........pause......pause lol.
But of course not all theists are free in their minds either or are their beliefs based upon actuality, you have the robots and impressionable people in religion as well but I'm speaking for myself, in order for me to change what I believe I need to see the evidence to the contrary, however the "evidence" in my scope of reality is much wider than in materialism or atheism, spirituality is of a different nature for it is not pinned down to merely the physical. So the utilization of examination goes beyond just the physical and natural, it goes in to the spiritual dimensions and that is not compatible with atheism or carnality.
So the question as to whether or not there is anything that would change my beliefs becomes a difficult question to just answer in a single word or moment, it takes a moment of reflection and consideration of all things involved.

Thanks for your interesting and helpful post.

My question is, what do you do when your spiritually-derived conclusions are contradicted by what is found by observation?

My "spiritually derived conclusions" are based on observations alone. Therefore if a "contradiction" arises I will/can adjust. What's the problem here?

If the bible says 6000 years, what do you do when faced by observations yielding billions of years? Even if you prefer the thousands, the billions don't go away.

Where does the Bible say "6000" years??? the day you find a date for creation is the same day I kiss your feet.....the earth is billions of years old...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 9:59:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 9:53:29 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
the day you find a date for creation is the same day I kiss your feet (...)

Do you like 'em smelly?

Two words:
James
Usher
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:01:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:14:30 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:54:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Spirituality/religion is the study and examination of spiritual reality

The simple fact that there are so many religious variants out there in the world and , according to you, they all "study" and "examine" reality and yet reach vastly different and often contradictory and even irreconcilable conclusions, should tell you just how deeply problematic that assertion is.

This is irrelevant, the spiritual dimensions are so various it would be impossible to harness the fullness of it, we only attempt to interpret it, some religions are more accurate than others, some are just myths and superstitions...Christianity has a very accurate spiritual basis.
It's simple to study the spiritual dimensions and discover the truth for oneself.


Just to tackle Christianity, it currently consists on some 33 000 different denominations which wouldn't be able to reach a doctrinal consensus even if held at point blank range. Collectively, they wouldn't agree on the minucia of doctrine, let alone the big issues such as the nature of God, the nature of Christ, is there such a thing as an immortal soul?, Does the devil really exist? Is hell literal? Do supernatural phenomena exist and have spiritual roots? What's the antura of the spiritual domain?, etc.., etc.,

"33,000" denominations with 4 Gospels and a handful of epistles that operate in unity, read them and discard the rest, that is what a source is for, to compare truth to falsity. I personally don't care what religious institutions say, I can gather for myself the simplicity of Christianity by myself.


Therefore, your assertion is so compromised by straightforward facts that I eagerly await further substantiation from you.

Really, perhaps you can show that to be true.....?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:28:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 12:57:30 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected.

You provide evidence that existence outside the natural realm is even possible, that indeed supernatural phenomena exist, and, look and behold, you will start seeing atheists accept it.

Wrong, atheists reject spiritual testimonies, if they didn't they would easily be Theists because there are more spiritual testimonies for spiritual reality then any other subject....so what are you waiting on??


But what you would like to have is people accept it aprioristically, without you submitting any sort of evidence. Sorry, standards have become higher than that.

Sorry, that is not my position, but thanks for the assertion.


News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science! Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.

You are jumbling up concepts. In our everyday lives, nobody calls upon the full-fledged scientific method in order to conduct themselves. People trust each other, gauge reputation, resort to intuition, opinion from third-parties, etc. But when the stakes are higher, say, a doctor tells you prostate cancer has awarded two more months to live, you react and adjust accordingly and ask for solid evidence. You may seek a second opinion from another expert, you perform additional medical exams, you go through the medical literature yourself. Surely, you do not blindly and merely put faith on the gentleman who carried the bad news.

Yes they do, you do and all atheists do. You explained exactly how you guys carry out your world views...some scientist laid it out for you. I'm not jumbling up anything. I'm talking about worldviews and ideologies, my statement stands correct, atheism is a mindset and ideology that is accepted at face value.


When it comes to the big questions, the origin of life, Whether God exists or not, etc., naturally, we should be extremely demanding and ask for evidence that is proportional to the extravagance of the claim being made.

Yes, this was explained to you, but "evidence" for Theists and for Atheists dramatically differ, atheists suspect and claim everything as merely physical, while Theists have a much wider scope of reality. What is an "extravagant" claim merely resides in perception.... to an atheist the claim of the existence of God is extraordinary, to the rest of the world it's normal lol.

Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-
You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!

I see you're butthurt. I certainly would understand why. Can't be easy watching a never ending trail of defeat, debate after debate after debate.
Deal with it.

Are you serious??? the one's who sound butt hurt are the atheists. Where is the never ending trail of defeat? I missed that one...

Matt Dillahunty himself has stated on many occasions he disagrees with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on a number of topics. I, for one, think Hitchens was one of the greatest polemists and yet in at least one occasion I was in frontal disagreement with him. Please, have the decency to contrast this with what happens in organized religion.

All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.

If it's propaganda then you should have no trouble dismantling it. Have a go at it.
Name one of such strawman arguments.

No, it's not the propaganda that's hard to refute, it's the mindset, if you know anything about mindsets you know what I mean.


Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias.

Clearly, you know nothing about epistemology, which, of course, doesn't surprise me. Clearly, You do not know the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism, which is what Science subscribes to.

Clearly you want to stay far away from what I'm getting at, which doesn't surprise me.


Learning the rudiments of a debate that's been going on for centuries now would spare you impending embarrassment.

Lol.


The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.

When you provide evidence to substantiate alleged knowledge, it will be evaluated. Not before that. You also have to explain why irreconcilable theistic views claim that very same sort of knowledge. Which one of those contradictory doctrines are you going to subscribe to if they all claim to have obtained the sort of knowledge you're talking about via the very same methods you're talking about?

Sorry, but spirituality is the application of spiritual laws and operations, I cannot "substantiate" anything without your participation. That's the way it works.
When you participate, then you can evaluate for yourself, until then you are left with speculating.


I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

Name one.

Reality
Perceptions
Propaganda
Misconceptions about Christianity
Misconceptions about God


Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that. I'm an extremely perceptive man and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms. When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.
To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality. The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding , unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

Verbose, self-serving, manure.

How is that? how is it "self-serving"? how is it manure? I mean I understand you may not like it, but how is it self-serving manure?

You're an extremely perceptive men? How humble and generous of you to say so.
Provide the evidence, we'll discuss it.

Provide evidence I'm a perceptive man? why don't you figure that out for yourself? I doubt you would disagree with that if you get to know me.

Meanwhile, you pep talk yourself into bliss and pat yourself on the shoulder if that gets you through the day.

I don't see where that happened, sorry but this is bull...
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 5:03:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/23/2016 12:18:19 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/23/2016 9:26:12 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/23/2016 5:55:31 AM, distraff wrote:

It helps dismantle the notion held by hillbillies such as Bronto that atheism is a monolithic sect just like their very own religious niche. Because they live in such a sectarian bubble, they perceive the world through that lens and in their wilful ignorance assume atheism to be just another religious branch with a head figure, a central devised doctrine, enforced beliefs, , etc.

Sure, you don't want to call atheism a religion fine and I have no issue with that but I can tell you what it has become...
It's become a mindset where anything outside materialism or naturalism does not exist and is rejected.

That is not true, nothing has ever been shown to exist outside of nature, there's nothing to reject other than the specious claims of believers.,

It's been "shown" to exist over and over through testimony and experience, you just refuse to accept it for what it is until some secular scientist shows you the repeatable experiment.

News flash for atheists....not everything that exists comes out of a scientific lab experiment, not even close... so don't be afraid of knowledge or information that is outside the scope of science!

What knowledge or information? Be specific.

Spiritual knowledge and information, some of which you have been given and most of which you have rejected because of your ideologies.


Atheists claim they're the "free thinkers" but this has proven to be false, I see it here in these very forums, it's clearly becoming a mindset and a limiting one at that.

Show us one atheist here who has ever made the claim that atheists are free thinkers?

Don't be ridiculous, I shouldn't have to show you that...



Ironically enough atheism does have head figures and spokesmen, central devised doctrines and enforced beliefs inadvertently O.-

Why is that ironic?

Ironic- happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.


You know who the hero's and head figures of atheism are like Matt Dillahunty when all the little atheist pawns repeat the same words, phrases and stupid jokes like brain washed zombies....the internet is where they congregate, these forums are their churches and pulpits LOL!!
All the atheist propaganda has become their own little special doctrines that all you guys use, when they are pointed out as the strawmen they are they continue to use and display them like doctrines that can't be debated.
Their beliefs are enforced through a materialistic mindset/pattern and every event and experience is filtered through that mindset resulting in extreme confirmation bias. The atheist is then forced to interpret any additional knowledge or truth that does not fit in that box as a delusion or nonexistent and is then discarded.
I've been chatting with atheists for almost a decade now and atheists go around pretending all sorts of things that aren't actual, both in reality and in Christianity/religion.

You make the claim of chatting with atheists for a decade, yet you lie about everything contained in those chats.

Really, prove that assessment... you should know I do not lie by now, but you are too....#$@%^&


They can't wrap their heads around the fact that atheism does not have any of those religious characteristics. Atheists can disagree and in fact do disagree at will with everything and anything, anything at all, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Krauss had or have to say.

This unpatrolled freedom is one of the beauties of atheism.

Wrong, wrong and wrong....atheism is anything but freedom, that is what you are not seeing....it's the opposite of that.

How so? Explain?

Explained below..."When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that."


I'm an extremely perceptive man

Not even by a long shot.

You lie, don't even pretend that it's not true. If you don't see that I think you are a blind man, and one that can't admit to truth.


and this is very easy to pick up on in discussions with atheists, atheists are not free in their minds and patterns of thought, and especially not open to knowledge that is outside of their paradigms.

What knowledge, exactly? Be specific or stfu.

I was more than specific, you are not that quick apparently.


When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that.

Of course, because that is the only thing that has every been shown to exist: nature. You yourself would be lying if you knew otherwise, and you have most certainly made that lie on many occasions.

You know darn well I don't lie, I've told and explained to you what I've seen to exist, so stop lying. I'd be lying to say otherwise and you know it.


To exist in freedom and freedom of thought one has to be open to all forms of existence and all forms of knowledge and truth, not just one and not just carnality.

There are no other forms of knowledge and truth other than what we observe in nature.

Materialistic nature to you is all that exists atheist, a Theist observes more than just the "natural", this has been elaborated on thoroughly. You are an atheist, I'm not, therefore our observations are not equal.


The spirit and the spiritual dimensions/realms are sooo rich in knowledge and wisdom

That is exactly the blatant lie you constantly repeat over and over.

Lie? apparently you have no idea what a lie is, otherwise you wouldn't be projecting that onto to me.


any scientist would have a field day, and it's seemingly endless/timeless things to discover is outstanding

And, since the "spiritual dimensions/realms" are all in your head, the only thing scientists can have a field day with is your mental condition.

Of course, as an atheist you are forced to believe that, unfortuntely you are a bad judge of reality.


unfortunately a wider scope of reality and truth are rejected and discarded in atheism, whatever does not fit in that paradigm is slapped with a label, a label of their own choosing.

You are always free to show us the "spiritual dimensions/realms" but you can't, because they only exist in your head as delusions.

I show it all the time by explaining and demonstrating how it functions, but you are just forced to deny everything as an atheist who has adopted baloney.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:43:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 10:43:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:,

It's been "shown" to exist over and over through testimony and experience, you just refuse to accept it for what it is until some secular scientist shows you the repeatable experiment.

Sorry, but someone saying so is not evidence, especially when there is NO hard evidence to back up the testimonies. And, since there is no evidence, there can be no repeatable experiments. It's all in your head.

Spiritual knowledge and information, some of which you have been given and most of which you have rejected because of your ideologies.

But, we already know "Spiritual" is a meaningless word, hence there is no knowledge or information to reject. We are talking about your ideology and the empty claims you offer of it.

Don't be ridiculous, I shouldn't have to show you that...

Exactly, there are none, you're just blowing smoke.

Ironic- happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

So, no answer then, instead you patronize.

Really, prove that assessment... you should know I do not lie by now, but you are too....#$@%^&

Sure, you're lied in this thread about there being spiritual evidence that can offer repeatable experiments, for example.

Explained below..."When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that."

There is no difference between you and I, we both must deal with nature in exactly the same way, and it will affect both of us exactly the same way, we share it equally, and nothing beyond that reality has never been shown to exist, no matter what testimonies anyone has offered. You are forced by the very laws of nature to adopt a naturalistic worldview, you simply have no choice in the matter.

You lie, don't even pretend that it's not true. If you don't see that I think you are a blind man, and one that can't admit to truth.

You pretend to perceive things are clearly not there, this limits the choices of your intentions.

I was more than specific, you are not that quick apparently.

Ah, is this where you invoke the meaningless word, "Spiritual"?

You know darn well I don't lie, I've told and explained to you what I've seen to exist, so stop lying. I'd be lying to say otherwise and you know it.

Then, you need to seek professional help, you have a problem with hallucinations.

Materialistic nature to you is all that exists atheist, a Theist observes more than just the "natural", this has been elaborated on thoroughly. You are an atheist, I'm not, therefore our observations are not equal.

That would be another lie, you certainly do not observe anything more than what nature demands us to observe, you have no special powers, you are as human as the rest of us. It's all in your head.

Of course, as an atheist you are forced to believe that, unfortuntely you are a bad judge of reality.

I judge reality in the exact way it presents itself to me, I am forced to be completely unbiased in how it affects me and how far I can manipulate it, the boundaries it sets and the openings and opportunities it offers. If such another realm exists, it must have the capacity to engage and interact with me or else I simply cannot know it exists. And, like gravity, this would be relative for everyone else on the planet, including you.

I show it all the time by explaining and demonstrating how it functions, but you are just forced to deny everything as an atheist who has adopted baloney.

You do no such thing, you don't explain or demonstrate anything, you just prattle on about a spiritual realm, turning your attention to the Bible. Entirely empty, vacuous claims.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:33:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:43:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/24/2016 10:43:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:,

It's been "shown" to exist over and over through testimony and experience, you just refuse to accept it for what it is until some secular scientist shows you the repeatable experiment.

Sorry, but someone saying so is not evidence, especially when there is NO hard evidence to back up the testimonies. And, since there is no evidence, there can be no repeatable experiments. It's all in your head.

Sorry Danne, your perceptions are not reality, no one can produce any science experiments to repeat for ya, you will find that out the hard way.

Spiritual knowledge and information, some of which you have been given and most of which you have rejected because of your ideologies.

But, we already know "Spiritual" is a meaningless word, hence there is no knowledge or information to reject. We are talking about your ideology and the empty claims you offer of it.

Meaningless to an atheist, but that's not reality Danne lol.... that's your box not mine.


Don't be ridiculous, I shouldn't have to show you that...

Exactly, there are none, you're just blowing smoke.

The smoke is coming from your own cloudy head.


Ironic- happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

So, no answer then, instead you patronize.

Showing the meaning of the word I used, learn how to read.


Really, prove that assessment... you should know I do not lie by now, but you are too....#$@%^&

Sure, you're lied in this thread about there being spiritual evidence that can offer repeatable experiments, for example.

Repeatable for who exactly? when have you applied anything spiritual?


Explained below..."When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that."

There is no difference between you and I, we both must deal with nature in exactly the same way, and it will affect both of us exactly the same way, we share it equally, and nothing beyond that reality has never been shown to exist, no matter what testimonies anyone has offered. You are forced by the very laws of nature to adopt a naturalistic worldview, you simply have no choice in the matter.

Yes Danne, I deal with "nature" exactly the way you do...but we are not talking about carnality are we Danne? we are discussing the spiritual. Everything about the spiritual and the existence of a Creator have been shown since the beginning of intelligent Human perception, you as an atheists are a small minority son.


You lie, don't even pretend that it's not true. If you don't see that I think you are a blind man, and one that can't admit to truth.

You pretend to perceive things are clearly not there, this limits the choices of your intentions.

Lol, nice try.


I was more than specific, you are not that quick apparently.

Ah, is this where you invoke the meaningless word, "Spiritual"?

Ah, still pretending to follow in discussions in a religious forum? hilarious stuff...


You know darn well I don't lie, I've told and explained to you what I've seen to exist, so stop lying. I'd be lying to say otherwise and you know it.

Then, you need to seek professional help, you have a problem with hallucinations.

Sorry I don't fit your little boxes you create for yourself, you are the one that needs to seek help or maybe you have...sorry to break it to ya but my physical, mental, public, community and psychological records are perfectly clear with no blemish, you are forced to believe lies, I've never been submitted, subscribed, accused or evaluated by any doctor, teacher, family member or friend as anything you would wish to assume nor have I ever taken or been subscribed medications. All you are left with is lies sir.


Materialistic nature to you is all that exists atheist, a Theist observes more than just the "natural", this has been elaborated on thoroughly. You are an atheist, I'm not, therefore our observations are not equal.

That would be another lie, you certainly do not observe anything more than what nature demands us to observe, you have no special powers, you are as human as the rest of us. It's all in your head.

First of all that was not a lie, you need to learn simple definitions. I have no "special powers" lol, they are not relevant to me, they are relevant to what I apply, or anyone applies.


Of course, as an atheist you are forced to believe that, unfortuntely you are a bad judge of reality.

I judge reality in the exact way it presents itself to me, I am forced to be completely unbiased in how it affects me and how far I can manipulate it, the boundaries it sets and the openings and opportunities it offers. If such another realm exists, it must have the capacity to engage and interact with me or else I simply cannot know it exists. And, like gravity, this would be relative for everyone else on the planet, including you.

You show no bias to the natural world, we are not discussing nature but religion and the reality of God, that you do indeed show bias toward, your ideology forces you to and that is clearly shown in our discussion.
You, as an atheist reject spiritual reality, you have shown that continually.


I show it all the time by explaining and demonstrating how it functions, but you are just forced to deny everything as an atheist who has adopted baloney.

You do no such thing, you don't explain or demonstrate anything, you just prattle on about a spiritual realm, turning your attention to the Bible. Entirely empty, vacuous claims.

This is an outright lie to anyone who has been reading my posts, my posts are clear and practical demonstrating what I've learned, and they would know better. You contradict yourself in the same paragraph, you reduce my knowledge to "prattling on about a spiritual realm", and that is to be expected, you are forced to believe my witness as anything but the truth. You label them as you so choose.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:04:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:33:35 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
my posts are clear and practical demonstrating what I've learned

The only thing your posts establish, and beyond refutation, is that you are a perfect clone of that other Ethan in his continual, categorical and resounding confirmation that all the talk about recognizing true Christians by the fruits of the spirit, all the talk about Christians turning the other Cheek, loving their enemies and showing agape love, is just hollow PR for external consumption, and that if we were ever to apply any of those criteria to your internet persona around here you'd flunk as a Christian the way Forest Gump would crash and burn at a String Theory final exam.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:05:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:33:35 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:43:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/24/2016 10:43:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:,

It's been "shown" to exist over and over through testimony and experience, you just refuse to accept it for what it is until some secular scientist shows you the repeatable experiment.

Sorry, but someone saying so is not evidence, especially when there is NO hard evidence to back up the testimonies. And, since there is no evidence, there can be no repeatable experiments. It's all in your head.

Sorry Danne, your perceptions are not reality, no one can produce any science experiments to repeat for ya, you will find that out the hard way.

Childish threats don't validate your hallucinations.

Spiritual knowledge and information, some of which you have been given and most of which you have rejected because of your ideologies.

But, we already know "Spiritual" is a meaningless word, hence there is no knowledge or information to reject. We are talking about your ideology and the empty claims you offer of it.

Meaningless to an atheist, but that's not reality Danne lol.... that's your box not mine.

More lies, reality does not include your hallucinations, other than existing in your head.


Don't be ridiculous, I shouldn't have to show you that...

Exactly, there are none, you're just blowing smoke.

The smoke is coming from your own cloudy head.


Ironic- happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

So, no answer then, instead you patronize.

Showing the meaning of the word I used, learn how to read.

I already know the meaning, you chose to deflect.


Really, prove that assessment... you should know I do not lie by now, but you are too....#$@%^&

Sure, you're lied in this thread about there being spiritual evidence that can offer repeatable experiments, for example.

Repeatable for who exactly? when have you applied anything spiritual?

Spiritual is a meaningless word, you nor anyone else can apply "anything spiritual" than you can flapping your arms and flying to the moon.

Repeatable for everyone, that's what makes it reality.


Explained below..."When a person adopts a naturalistic/atheistic framework "worldview" everything is filtered through that, every event and experienced is interpreted as only that."

There is no difference between you and I, we both must deal with nature in exactly the same way, and it will affect both of us exactly the same way, we share it equally, and nothing beyond that reality has never been shown to exist, no matter what testimonies anyone has offered. You are forced by the very laws of nature to adopt a naturalistic worldview, you simply have no choice in the matter.

Yes Danne, I deal with "nature" exactly the way you do...but we are not talking about carnality are we Danne?

Carnality is another meaningless word, we are simply talking about reality.

we are discussing the spiritual. Everything about the spiritual and the existence of a Creator have been shown since the beginning of intelligent Human perception, you as an atheists are a small minority son.

You are lying again, no such things have ever been shown to exist, if they were, everyone on the planet would know it.


You lie, don't even pretend that it's not true. If you don't see that I think you are a blind man, and one that can't admit to truth.

You pretend to perceive things are clearly not there, this limits the choices of your intentions.

Lol, nice try.


I was more than specific, you are not that quick apparently.

Ah, is this where you invoke the meaningless word, "Spiritual"?

Ah, still pretending to follow in discussions in a religious forum? hilarious stuff...

Still pretending spiritual is not a meaningless word.


You know darn well I don't lie, I've told and explained to you what I've seen to exist, so stop lying. I'd be lying to say otherwise and you know it.

Then, you need to seek professional help, you have a problem with hallucinations.

Sorry I don't fit your little boxes you create for yourself, you are the one that needs to seek help or maybe you have...sorry to break it to ya but my physical, mental, public, community and psychological records are perfectly clear with no blemish, you are forced to believe lies, I've never been submitted, subscribed, accused or evaluated by any doctor, teacher, family member or friend as anything you would wish to assume nor have I ever taken or been subscribed medications. All you are left with is lies sir.

Yes, lies are all I'm receiving from you.


Materialistic nature to you is all that exists atheist, a Theist observes more than just the "natural", this has been elaborated on thoroughly. You are an atheist, I'm not, therefore our observations are not equal.

That would be another lie, you certainly do not observe anything more than what nature demands us to observe, you have no special powers, you are as human as the rest of us. It's all in your head.

First of all that was not a lie, you need to learn simple definitions. I have no "special powers" lol, they are not relevant to me, they are relevant to what I apply, or anyone applies.

Then, you are clearly very confused or are simply lying, which is it?


Of course, as an atheist you are forced to believe that, unfortuntely you are a bad judge of reality.

I judge reality in the exact way it presents itself to me, I am forced to be completely unbiased in how it affects me and how far I can manipulate it, the boundaries it sets and the openings and opportunities it offers. If such another realm exists, it must have the capacity to engage and interact with me or else I simply cannot know it exists. And, like gravity, this would be relative for everyone else on the planet, including you.

You show no bias to the natural world, we are not discussing nature but religion and the reality of God, that you do indeed show bias toward, your ideology forces you to and that is clearly shown in our discussion.

There is no God in reality, if there was, we would all know it because that's what reality is all about. You can stop lying about that anytime.

You, as an atheist reject spiritual reality, you have shown that continually.

There is nothing to reject, it's all a delusion/hallucination in your head.


I show it all the time by explaining and demonstrating how it functions, but you are just forced to deny everything as an atheist who has adopted baloney.

You do no such thing, you don't explain or demonstrate anything, you just prattle on about a spiritual realm, turning your attention to the Bible. Entirely empty, vacuous claims.

This is an outright lie to anyone who has been reading my posts, my posts are clear and practical demonstrating what I've learned, and they would know better.

Yet, no one agrees with you.

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph, you reduce my knowledge to "prattling on about a spiritual realm", and that is to be expected, you are forced to believe my witness as anything but the truth. You label them as you so choose.

Your witness? LOL! Twitness, maybe.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth