A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

No axiom grounds my morality. My morality stems from my emotions and is modified by my personal and social experiences.

"Emotions." "Personal and social experiences." "Stems from." Well, a nice way of saying, "I do whatever the heck I feel like at the moment," I suppose.

Not much of a "morality," that: certainly not the kind that can provoke anyone else's admiration.

But still, expectations weren't high. After all, Atheism is, as you declare, amoral.

[Immanuel Can]

No tell me an axiom of yours and I'll show you where you brake it.

"No"?

"Brake"?

Ummm...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess something was converted by autocorrect there.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No tell me an axiom of yours and I'll show you where you brake it.

"No"?

"Brake"?

Ummm...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess something was converted by autocorrect there.

Umm how childish of you..
No matter. I know you are just avoiding the question. I can always repeat it.

So. Tell me a moral axiom by which you live your life and I'll show you where you break it.

[thedoc]

WRONG. 70% of them are ATHEISTS ABOUT YOUR GOD.[/color]

It doesn't matter,

Yes it does.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend they are all the same, but try to walk in to a Mosque.

One of our local Mosques periodically invite Christians in to hear their explanation of Islam, and other Mosques in the area have welcomed non-Muslims in to observe their service.

[seeds]

...why would humanity need a “savior” to redeem us from the alleged eternal consequences of a “fall” that never happened?

Quite correct: there would have to be some sort of important incident at the beginning of human history that explains why human beings are not as they should be...

Humans are acting exactly as they are expected to act under the terms and conditions of the “designed setting” in which we momentarily exist.

Again, we are functioning at a purposely restricted level of consciousness so that all of the strange features of our temporary earthly existence will seem logical and make sense to us.

...Whether you want to understand that incident in mythological or literal language, it would still actually have to have happened. So you must ask what that would be.

IC, come out of your “bubble” and try to understand that nothing happened at the beginning of human history that would suggest that some kind of “fall from grace” took place.

That's as true for your view as for mine. For your view posits that souls are, so to speak, less-than-fully-developed, or under-actualized in some way, as you put it, "limited in level of consciousness,"

No, it’s not so much of us being less than fully developed, it is more of the fact that we are not yet “fully-born.”

With that in mind, even though I have been criticizing the veracity of Biblical mythology (e.g., the nonsensical claim of an “original sin” taking place in Eden), I do however believe that there are many ideas within its pages that give us “hints” as to what we really are.

For example, I believe that the Bible’s unmistakable suggestion that we have a “familial” (child-to-parent) relationship with the Creator of this universe is its most important message to us.

Combine that with the fact that it insists that we must experience a “second birth” into a higher context of existence in order to see what that “familial relationship” really means, and you will understand why I suggested that we are “not yet fully-born.”

Seeing how it is obvious that you do not read the posts that I refer you to in order to clarify my arguments, I am going to take the liberty of importing one of them into this thread:

We are agents of consciousness who are imbued with the capability of creating holographic-like manifestations of “reality” within the closed and subjective arena of our own personal universe (our mind), just as God (our ultimate parent) has done with his mind.

And through the process of death we will be “delivered” (birthed) into a higher context of consciousness and existence (literally “outside” of this universe) in which God and our ultimate form (the exact same form as God) will be openly revealed to us.

To slightly paraphrase something I posited elsewhere:

In our second and final birth we will be leaving our physical bodies behind (like a cosmic version of “placental afterbirth”).

And if something as amazing as the human body can be thought of as being placental afterbirth - a glob of tissue to be discarded...



...then just imagine how wondrous our “true” and eternal form must be.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of visualizing how “natural” and “organic” our ultimate situation truly is.

_______

[Immanuel Can]

So. Tell me a moral axiom by which you live your life and I'll show you where you break it.

Au contraire: since, despite never having met me, you know so much about my life, I can't wait to hear what you already say you know. For you assure me you can already tell me where I fall short, regardless of whatever I would say...

Go ahead: enumerate my sins, as you know them.

[Immanuel Can]

nothing happened at the beginning of human history that would suggest that some kind of “fall from grace” took place.

So again, your conclusion must be that whatever human beings do is "good"? Is that indeed what you suppose?

No, it’s not so much of us being less than fully developed, it is more of the fact that we are not yet “fully-born.”

Why aren't we? If we are in nowise out of step with the Divine, why would it be necessary for us to be "not fully born" in the first place?

[Immanuel Can]

One of our local Mosques periodically invite Christians in to hear their explanation of Islam, and other Mosques in the area have welcomed non-Muslims in to observe their service.

You don't have to defend them to him. He's just wrong...as usual.

The only question on this particular strand is the warrant for Atheism. His assertion was that everybody knows full well that there is "no evidence for God." My rejoinder was merely that regardless of the "evidence" in question, a lot of people seem to think there IS some, so he's not warranted in his self-confident assertion that everybody agrees with him.

Even if he can't figure that out, it's not important. His statement is still just bluster, either way.

[thedoc]

One of our local Mosques periodically invite Christians in to hear their explanation of Islam, and other Mosques in the area have welcomed non-Muslims in to observe their service.

You don't have to defend them to him. He's just wrong...as usual.

The only question on this particular strand is the warrant for Atheism. His assertion was that everybody knows full well that there is "no evidence for God." My rejoinder was merely that regardless of the "evidence" in question, a lot of people seem to think there IS some, so he's not warranted in his self-confident assertion that everybody agrees with him.

Even if he can't figure that out, it's not important. His statement is still just bluster, either way.

I agree, some of us have definite evidence for the existence of God, but I also have the understanding that the evidence is for me and those who were there who will accept that evidence. So his assertion that "everyone knows that there is no evidence" is incorrect.

FYI, I only defend myself against him for the benefit of the thousands of lurkers who are reading this thread.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It doesn't matter,

Yes it does.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend they are all the same, but try to walk in to a Mosque.

One of our local Mosques periodically invite Christians in to hear their explanation of Islam, and other Mosques in the area have welcomed non-Muslims in to observe their service.

What's your point?

[Hobbes' Choice]

So. Tell me a moral axiom by which you live your life and I'll show you where you break it.

Au contraire: since, despite never having met me, you know so much about my life, I can't wait to hear what you already say you know. For you assure me you can already tell me where I fall short, regardless of whatever I would say...

Go ahead: enumerate my sins, as you know them.

Running from questions again???

Tell me a moral axiom by which you live your life and I'll show you where you break it!

Obviously you'd have to tell me an axiom by which you live your life.

[Immanuel Can]

Your qualifications to speak, first, sir. You grow familiar too soon.

Tell me something about my life.

Anything.

Hey, never mind the obscure stuff or my personal sins...I'll let you just tell me my hair colour

[uwot]

Where do you get your 'facts' from, Mr Can? Which biologist claims that there was an original breeding human couple? And where were these facts published?
1. Almost half of the people who have gender dysphoria are attempting suicide.

2. Neither normalizing the behaviour nor sex-reassignment surgery has ever statistically improved that rate.

3. Liberals want to encourage that condition.

As for your hair colour: I have no idea, but as on most dicks, it's a fair bet they are short and curly.

[seeds]

It is imperative that humans believe in the integrity of objective realty so that everything always makes sense to us as we participate in the process of creation that produces new souls (God’s literal “offspring”) as witnessed in the picture below...

Or this soul created by god.
[grotesque image]

Or this other baby
[grotesque image]

How about this one?
[grotesque image]

All miracles.

Hobbes, you always have such an upbeat and positive message for us.

Have you ever considered going into the greeting card business?

It is becoming more and more obvious that in direct proportion to the intensity with which you defend your hardcore materialistic views, you are in turn demonstrating the depth of your somnambulism within the context of this “dream-like” illusion we call a universe.

In other words, the more eloquent and heartfelt your arguments are in defense of materialism, the more asleep you prove yourself to be.

And just so you know that you are in good company, I ascribe the same to Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, just to name a few.
_______

[seeds]

Or these souls.

Why in the world would you consider tiny “capsules” of DNA to be “souls”?
_______