Imperefct God

[gaffo]

of course i fear death - as i have always - even prior to 1977.

But why? Why fear what must be?

Ideed, for reason shows it must be, so far not.

but my instinct still fears it and so i do as a man.

And since, if Atheism is right, you'll have no consciousness of it -- ever again, for eternity -- what's to fear?

again right - end of life. but my fear is not upon reason but upon instinct. so even konwing my life ends at death and i should not far it - i still do. like all other animals.

you can't reason your way out of fear.

[gaffo]

So you saying the Cross is what matters - period.

I don't say it. Christ says it. I just believe Him.

why dont you guys worship both of the theivs that died on corss next to your Messiah - since the cross is all that matters.

Well, it's not just ANY cross that matters. It's the cross of Christ, because of who He is and what He did there. There, the Righteous One died for the unrighteous ones.

As for the thieves, the answer is simple: we don't worship them because they were sinful men like us. Only one of them was saved, and through no action of his own. (How could he do anything; his hands were nailed to a piece of wood?) He was saved by faith in Christ...the same way I am, and the same way all men must be.

he died for ME - and I'm all that matters

Not quite. What Christians say is, "He died for me, and He's all that matters."

If He had not, I'd be in just as bad a shape, and plausibly worse, than anybody else. Me, I've got nothing to offer God. That's why I need to be saved; I can't save myself. I don't deserve to.

Good thing Christ is the Saviour. (That's what that means, you see. Even the name, "Jesus" means "God saves.")

thanks for reply - so the cross is all that matters and gnostics were never christians, and christ message while on earth did not matter.

might as well nail Stalin on a cross in 1950 - and make it good.

yes?

[gaffo]

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

so untrue Man has as much instinct and is rule by it as much all all the other animals on the planet.

Humans did have instincts when they were animals back in the day… but have since lost their animal instinct due to dependence on technology and conceptual language.

Human babies are the only species that are totally helpless for the first couple of years, due to having lost all their natural animal instincts.

They are basically turning into A I robots

pure bullshit.

man today is the same animal he was 2 million yrs ago - and an 80 yr old man has the same instincts he had as a baby.

An animal's instinct provides it automatic behavior to provide itself all of it's biological needs. It doesn't have to discover or learn what food is appropriate for it, how to acquire it, how to be the kind of organism it is, how to mate, or anything other behavior its nature requires. Instinct provides all the right behavior.

A human must discover and learn everything one's nature requires for it to live. A human must learn what is and is not food (but poison), how to acquire and prepare it, how to care for it's physical needs from eliminating waste to protecting its body, how to build or acquire shelter, how to care for their young (which no animal has to learn), and how to do everything human nature requires, because a human has no instinctive guide for any of its behavior.

An animal does no have volition, because it does not have to figure out what to do or how to do it, instinct provides the, "choices," automatically. A human being is a volitional creature and must consciously choose everything one does, because they have no instinct that provides the right behavior.

ok, i fyou say so. i fyou reject that man is just a smarter animal than other animals - and somehow has a mind that negates his insticts - more fool you.

but you do you and i me, carry on

[gaffo]

I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms. You have no middle terms.

I don't play by nonsense rules or conditions, which is what you are presenting.

Your ongoing personal rant against Atheism as if it were a foe, personified with characteristics, is absurd. I

Agreed - he is pejudiced for sure - not just becasue he is a Chrsitan (i have 3 best friend who are and have no prej against me) - i suspect it is more personal for IC - i wonder what its all about though.

I also wonder if he has the same prejudice against Hindus/Muslims/Buddists - etc........not non beleviers, just beleiver in the "Wrong God". I've nver heard him rant agains them so assume he does not hate them as he does us.

[gaffo]

Yep.

we must agree to disagree Sir.

I think we can just disagree. You seem to think I'm wrong; I'm not.

But we can disagree without becoming unfriendly, of course.

agreed, evil atheist i am.........so maybe i have an alteritive motive - watch my shift eyes.............never trust an Athiest is my advise - we are all evil.

[gaffo]

Yep.

we must agree to disagree Sir.

I think we can just disagree. You seem to think I'm wrong; I'm not.

But we can disagree without becoming unfriendly, of course.

agreed, evil atheist i am.........so maybe i have an alteritive motive - watch my shift eyes.............never trust an Athiest is my advise - we are all evil


we eat babies when we can and i personally bow down to the sun at each sunset in my worhisp of Belial - just so you know.

[Immanuel Can]

in the above you seem to "respect Nich" in some why - if so in what wy? - i know noting about him - i my col days i thought he was a blowhad and dick so did not botyher to learn from him. you sem to think that he had someting worthy of learning - what is that if i may ask?

I give him credit for the things for which he deserves credit. And I criticize him in the ways he's deserving of criticism.

But there is something I like about what he says. It's that, as I said, he's more honest than most modern Atheists. He begins with the unfounded assumption that God is not real (or "dead," if you like), but then does a pretty good job of outlining the consequences of that belief for future Atheists. It's Nietzsche, not me, who points out that it means things like: no objective morality, no objective truth, no actual meaning in life, everything becomes just a play for power, and there are no compass points anymore by which an Atheist can navigate from reality to value.

All that is true. And he said it. So I give him credit.

a an aside - Atheist should be terrifid? why so?

Because of the consequences Nietzsche laid out so honestly. If one is an Atheist, one can only go on believing in morality, meaning, purpose, justice, truth and hope beyond the grave if one is willing to lie to oneself. Atheism means there's no basis for such beliefs anymore. So, if anyone actually believed Atheism in such a way as to try to live consistently with what it implies, he would have to become quite a Nihilist and sociopath.

I'm thankful that most Atheists I've met are better than their creed warrants them in being. They continue to believe in morality and meaning and so on, even though it makes no sense when they pair it with their Atheism. I'd rather them be inconsistent, or even be hypocrites, than be sociopaths. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

God from time immammoral are not need to make man good - he is born that way as a social animal. via evolution.

You think so?

Well, let's prove that. At least, let's show it rationally.

What is it, in specific, about evolution that morally compels "goodness" in man?

survival as a social animal, otheriwse he would ahv sold out his neighbor and himself and the man line would be xtinct today.

I think that's very obviously not the case. People don't need to be good in order to survive. In fact, being good often works against their chances of survival, as individuals. No, what works best, from an evolutionary perspective, is if I convince OTHERS to behave morally, perhaps, but I allow myself the freedom of being either moral or immoral whenever I like. Then, I have all my options open. I can take advantage of all situations, and thus promote my personal survival (and the survival of my genes, pace Dawkins).

So no, I would not go extinct if I behave immorally. Not at all. But I might get the upper hand if I were to behave amorally. So that would make a good case for me being amoral...like Nietzsche.

In other words, why MUST an Atheist be moral?

wow - thats a tangent and utterly irelivant!!!!!!

Not at all. Nietzsche says any thinking Atheist must be "beyond good and evil." Good and evil no longer are categories that refer to anything.

Now, Atheists can (and often do) make up a phony morality, or even more often, keep thoughtlessly following the morality of the crowd they're in: but Atheism itself, if true, does not give any grounds for anybody to believe in morality.

Nietzsche again.

i was born a man before i became an atheist. my moral compass did not change at age 12.

That's because you were raised in a society that had morality in it already. And you had been trained to think in terms of good and evil, or right and wrong, or better and worse actions. But Atheism would never give you warrant for that.

Why can't he be like Nietzsche or Stalin or Epstein, if he likes things that way?

who is He? - atheists?

Yes. Please explain to me why an Atheist cannot choose to be a Stalin, a Nietzsche or an Epstein.

Pol Pot killed a million the good Buddist he was.

Well, Buddhists may say it had nothing to do with his Buddhism. I don't insist on that. But I think it was much more a product of his Communism.

In no sense was Pol Pot a "believer" in anything I am encouraging.

Is there any feature in being the accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, or in disbelieving in God, that requires a man to be good not evil?

You'll have to make that case to me.

Again, why must an Atheist NOT become a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao or an Epstein. What, about his Atheism, should prevent that?

thanks for relpy - as always

.
Of course. We enjoy our discussion, I think. I certainly do.

[Immanuel Can]

so the cross is all that matters

It matters very much.

... and gnostics were never christians,

Correct.

and christ message while on earth did not matter.

???
No, that's not true. And I sure can't imagine how you got that idea. What do you mean, "his message while on earth did not matter"? Which "message" are you speaking of?

[Immanuel Can]

evil atheist i am...

Are you? I didn't say so.

But it is true that the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." So I can accept that's true of all of us.

[Greatest I am]

evil atheist i am...

Are you? I didn't say so.

But it is true that the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." So I can accept that's true of all of us.

Thank all the genocidal gods, --- we stupidly honor, --- that most humans fall far short of that evil marker.

I guess that is why you sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault.

I too am glad that I fall short of honoring your really good genocidal and infanticidal god.

I am also glad to fall short of being homophobic and misogynous.

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

You can't "use" the rules of logic, anymore than you can "use" the law of gravity. It is what it is.

So, a person such as yourself can insert anything into the premise structure -- even complete fantasy or distortion -- then claim it's valid because it's following the "rules of logic"? Garbage in = garbage out... and the transparency of that reveals how it serves you.

That's why I gave you the website: so you could see for yourself that I was telling you the truth.

No reputable sources can validate or conceal such nonsense and distortions. Your actions and self-serving intent are revealed regardless of the associations you claim to use or have.

Truth is truth. You may not like it, but it just is.

That seems to be your own problem/struggle. Your desperate insistence on the validity of your narrow boundaries and beliefs (as "truth") are no longer aligned with the broader awareness of humankind. Perhaps you should have guessed how much bigger the concept of god could become, beyond human egos and stories. That's why archaic stories don't make much sense -- they are limited by the controlling and fearful agendas and thinking of the time they were authored. Humankind is surely best served by evolving forward using and expanding our innate beneficial qualities that are naturally accessible and realized, without any theist belief or religion.

[Lacewing]

Your ongoing personal rant against Atheism as if it were a foe, personified with characteristics, is absurd.

Agreed - he is pejudiced for sure - not just becasue he is a Chrsitan (i have 3 best friend who are and have no prej against me) - i suspect it is more personal for IC - i wonder what its all about though.

I have Christian friends, also, and none of them talk the way I.C. does. He is reflecting his own personal stuff, which I don't think represents the best of Christianity. I think it is more in service to his ego. My Christian friends are evolving and broadening their understandings. They see the good naturally accessible in all people, regardless of beliefs. I think that's beautiful and honest. They are more about love than fear. It's very inspiring and encouraging to see. Hopefully such a wave will continue to build and roll through theism.

It seems more honest and realistic to be able to recognize and acknowledge the good and bad throughout all. Clarity and connection comes when we let go of extreme notions and self-serving stories. There are more viewing platforms above the noise.

[Immanuel Can]

You can't "use" the rules of logic, anymore than you can "use" the law of gravity. It is what it is.

So, a person such as yourself can insert anything into the premise structure...

No: one has to insert true information, or as logicians say, the conclusion is "untrue" and the syllogism is "unsound."

But if the information is true, and the form is correct, then the conclusion is inescapable. (All this you can read in the link I sent you.)

So the syllogism is this:

Premise 1: There is no God (...according to Atheism: And it has to be that. That's true. It's true by definition of what "Atheist" means.)
Premise 2: To be supplied by Lace.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Atheist can X (X being a moral claim, such as "murder," or "rape," or "give ice cream to orphans"...it's left entirely up to you what it is, so I'm not responsible for that, either.)

All you have to do is supply the Premise 2 that makes Premise 1 logically entail the conclusion X you have designed. That's it.

And whatever you say will be true, if the form is right. Because Premise 1 certainly is, and the conclusion is your own. All I'm inputting is that whatever you choose for the conclusion, X should be something ethical or moral, some precept, since we're trying to see if Atheism can warrant any such thing.

But it can't. That's what you're going to find out.

[Immanuel Can]

..most humans fall far short of that evil marker.

Watch Kabul. Watch Haiti. Watch South Africa. Watch Cuba. Watch China, or Venzuela. Watch many places, for that matter; and then tell me human beings are all sweetness and light.

And when you're done, have a look within yourself. A person only has to know his own heart to know the truth.

[Dontaskme]

..most humans fall far short of that evil marker.

Watch Kabul. Watch Haiti. Watch South Africa. Watch Cuba. Watch China, or Venzuela. Watch many places, for that matter; and then tell me human beings are all sweetness and light.

And when you're done, have a look within yourself. A person only has to know his own heart to know the truth.

Again, ask yourself, why would anyone want to impose or force upon another life to live as a person born in Kabul, or Haiti, or South Africa. or Cuba, or China, or Venzuela. ?

Why, just answer the question, why would anyone want that?

Why would any person who knows in his own heart what is actually happening here on planet earth, want that?