3RU7AL

In a great way, people become slaves by choice.

It might be hard, but you can always put the bottle down, you know.

What a dumb statement. 100% screwed means the creators sign a contract for zero compensation.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you pirate intellectual property.

The only people who get hurt are the ones who put all that time, effort, and money to produce the books, music, movies, etc.

Food, shelter, and procreation alone can only do so much for spiritual wellbeing.

God's judgement is always righteous because  God is The Truth. The Truth is righteousness. 

The Truth is what sets you free.

Those who forsake The Truth have chosen torment for themselves.

It is no strange thing.

God knows those who are His.

God's judgement is always righteous.

Tell me what they value...

If you aren't a slave to God, you are a slave to what you prefer over God anyway. You are a slave to error.

A puppet doesn't choose to cooperate. 

The only thing that is functionally different between an atheist and a pagan is that the pagan isn't in denial of the fact that they bow to gods.

Nonetheless the ensuing argument currently remains unresolvable 

...through cooperation with the divine energy. 

Jesus Christ is theanthropos not hemitheos.

What do you mean by doctrine theology? Doctrine is simply what the church teaches.

Something that began to exist and will at some point no longer exist is by nature different than something that exists eternally.

Contingent existence is by nature different than non-contingent existence.

For you to say they are the same nature is some type of monophysitism.

This is not the same as saying these two different natures are united without confusion, without mixture, and without division within one fundamental reality. It is 2 physis united in 1 hypostasis, not 1 compound physis. 

God is in the whole thing.

This is the correct and therefore orthodox formulation.

As they believe in a dead god, probably not much.

Perhaps the atheist that came to believe that the big bang as god might be inspired to become a physicist or something. Maybe they will be more charitable towards others who believe in gods or God. Maybe they find that they have trouble hanging around the same people. Who knows! There are so many variables that we can't account for, and faith is a living thing, not a casted image.

To say that God does not interact with creation could not be the case.

The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation.

Your position is entirely based on looking at this "no holy rule book" thing with tunnel vision. It is also making the claim that belief in God or lack thereof has no practical implications.You don't need a holy rule book for your beliief in a god to have practical implicatons. You don't need to believe in a god for there to be a god that you in action show devotion to in spirit. Indeed, most atheists have gods, they are simply in denial of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of the different types of god believers who have existed didn't require a "holy rule book."I would also like to point out that to refer to say, Orthodox Scriptures as a "Holy rule book" is a mischaracterization and grossly inaccurate. I can't speak for other traditions who have scripture, but I believe it would be the case that most of them are not "holy rule books" as you irreverently call them.

What you call mind, we call nous. I am pretty sure that is what you mean. The word sometimes gets translated into "mind".This particular Nous(not to be confused with our own mind, more of a cosmic "mind") is also very related to what we call the divine logos. In fact, it has been identified with God's law or even God outright by some Church Fathers.

The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation.

However, we say that the uncreated and created are united in one fundamental reality or hypostasis.

I don't really think this is different than what you are saying, sans your conclusion of "epistemological monism", which I can't say is true or false as I am not sure what you mean by this.

Even if I were to grant your distinction, there is definitely a difference between someone who acknowledges a god, gods, or God and one who is in denial of God and all gods.

What do you think that an epistemological limit is? Given the philosophical and theoretical nature of epistemology.

Let me try to interpret.The mind is not the brain, but manifestations of the mind. Basically, a mind is composed of say, thoughts rather than organic matter and such. You are also claiming that nothing exists apart from this mind, that something only exists so far as it exists in this mind.Would you say this is a correct interpretation?

What does loving Krishna look like?

If you can not comprehend what is meant by the same old unresolvable argument then why do you continue to debate it?

Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mutilate my posts. Do I have to make smaller posts?

How does belief in God effect my values? It doesn't as I already stated. Love of God is where the effect is. 

Belief is functionally different than non belief.

Belief in Truth is definitely different than not believing in truth. 

I couldn't lose faith because I understand what it is our faith is in and thus realize nothing else can be valid.

You don't understand what our faith is in, and so your grasp of it is very superficial. You only see the created externals of faith, not the spirit that inspires these manifestations.

What is my religion? Sincerity of faith and charity. Where could I go after this? Self deception and apathy toward my neighbor? It would be like a dog returning to his own vomit and eating  it for me to choose worldliness over godliness. Everything in this world is vanity, I gain no pleasure from it anyway. Even the things that bring brief enjoyment leave empty soon after. My fortress, my home, my rest is in God. My life's focus is to abide in God with both my heart and mind. In my walk.

What is life without God? Meaningless. Vain. Not even really life, but death. Endless suffering and no consolation.

With God, I have my consolation.

With God I can endure the suffering and even transcend it.

Without God there is no reason for anything.

It is an empty existence where life is simply the satisfying of the lusts of the mind and flesh.

What else is there? Where is the motivation? Where is the conviction? Everything is done for the hell of it.

This mind thing Is up there with , 

My heart says yes. And me brain says no.  

Once a being can feel their heart weighing in on shlt they've reached another level.

Ya Heart mind is probably stronger then ya head mind. 

( What do you think?) 

You've only restated the proviso. I am asking you the reason you submitted it in the first place. What is the significance in your distinction?

So then "existence" is fundamentally dependent on the mind.

But just to be clear, mind =/= brain.

Why have you added this proviso?

I dispute that noumenon is spinoza's God to begin with.

God is not a manifestation of the mind.

If that was the case, mind would be God.

At that point, you wouldn't say God is noumenon, instead you would say that God is nous.

And even that sounds pretty new age hippy dippy.

You didn't tell me how you understand belief.

For all I know, you could be saying something meaningless like "There is no functional difference between belief in the tastiness of apples and belief in the fluffiness of clouds."

But in any case, these are functionally different. 

Maybe you should say what you mean by functional as well.

I don't believe that belief in the existence of Deity or deities is not functionally the same as lack of belief in Deity or deities. 

Besides you are wrong.

Do you know what no God looks like? Nothing.

There can't be anything without God.

This whole topic is nonsense.

You're handling this quite well, i hope you two continue this evidence topic in this thread. 

My two cents... they do not have any hard evidence that would convince everyone, to date. Is there this evidence? Will there be this evidence? I don't know. If we are going off their holy text... i basically throw that out as evidence bc it's clearly man made. But once we get into subjective evidence, being someone that has witnessed some profound unexplained phenomena, i can't rule out that they may have witnessed something too. However, that evidence can easily be misinterpreted bc as far as i know... it's not repeatable. And, it's very easy for one to correlate these events with ones faith; confirmation bias. I personally would say there is evidence of "something." But going as far as saying it is of any one particular god... i agree with Press that there isn't evidence of that in particular. Simply bc it would contradict a hindu that see's Vishnu or a Christian that witnesses god... maybe it was both the same god, but how can we know which one? I agree with you that he should back up that there is no evidence, but i am on his side that (even though i think there is evidence) it doesn't point to anything other than the unexplained. 

It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".

Or in other words, any supposition or analysis of that which exists fundamentally independent of the mind would be "logically incoherent"?

If I were to submit a converse construction, would it suffice to say, it is logically necessary for anything logically coherent to be fundamentally dependent on the mind?

No, I am saying that your definition is nonsense because it implies that what it states in place of revelation isn't itself a type of revelation.

No it doesn't, it is a Greek word.