Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
They then say he limits himself from foresight of freewill. Which is kinda weird if he’s eternal.
It's not that God "limits" himself, it's that there can be no foresight of freewill, that is a contradiction of terms. It is nonsensical to claim that there can be foresight of free will.....Free will can't be known because of the endless dynamics of an endless amount of ways that can determine a choice. Omniscience (the capacity to know everything) only applies to things that qualify as knowable, in other words God knows everything that can be known. Individual choice does not qualify as something knowable because it is a spontaneous event, meaning that it can happen in a variety of ways rendering free will impossible to predetermine.
I'm also not one of these guys that push that God HAS to be omniscient...God knows what is knowable, all things that can be known. If you were to say "God's not omniscient then if God doesn't have foresight of freewill", my response would be I don't give a shyt, it's just a made up term anyways. God is a maximal Being, can know all things knowable, can do all things doable and be in all places at all times that have existence.
Would a Human Clone Have a Soul?
A soul is not a development of the processes of physics and chemistry, it exists independent of that. As far as I know, there are no known "human" clones, embryonic clones would only be associated with the developmental processes of the physical body, but a soul actually enters the womb after stages of early development. So, obviously a clone being without a soul is going to be a totally different product, one I'm not sure I want to witness.
It could be that a human clone could be a stillborn if allowed to fully develop, or possibly appear as something very bizarre. Because again, we're talking about a manufactured freak of nature. A soul cannot ever be duplicated through the hands of any science project.
So, what we have are two things that take place when a human conception happens, you have the development of a physical body and the marriage of that form with a soul at some stage during (or after) embryonic development....which most likely occurs during the process of brain and neural development.
A soul is what makes a human being unique, animated and fully functioning as a highly conscious person. A physical body is nothing more than a machine meant to process chemistry, a clone is nothing close to a real conscious soul. What the question becomes for me, is can a soul be imparted into a clone job? that I don't know yet. But a soul exists with God before any physical body appears, it is created as a direct expression of God and has no association with an embodiment until it is sent to experience that world.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The low intellect genetic debris mind of EtrnlVW, can't rationalize that there is no soul. This is proven by the fact that a human has to learn a language to think.If there really was a soul, everyone would know the same language. When your brain dies, you die.
Wow, see what happens folks when you have very limited intellect and you allow others to control your output? ultimately you have no ability to rationalize outside of what you've been conditioned to believe.
What you wrote makes absolutely no sense, your physical body is the vehicle you use to navigate this world, to interact with it. All your perceptions will be confined by the components and senses of your physical body, this is so that your experience here appear to you as a genuine, one of a kind experience. You weren't meant to come here and have a universal experience dum dum...you were meant to have a HUMAN experience on planet earth, and so they are unique to this one planet.
To interact with this world, you must learn its languages, use the human bodies senses to be immersed within it, be restricted to the confines of the human brain to keep you confined within this world. This world was meant to be unique from other experiences, just like other places you visit will speak different languages, have different ways of communicating, have different places to see and observe.
Your soul is the universal tool that inhabits various places to exist, this means that no matter where you go you have a different experience.....though your soul never changes, and is always the universal observer. But in order that your soul inhabit a world, you must have a physical form or body that correlates with that environment and you learn how to communicate with the members of that environment how they created it. Your body that you inhabited will eventually perish, the soul moves forward and you exist elsewhere. The afterlife though, language is a universal event, because thoughts are produced/generated as words and other souls understand/comprehend what you think, so there is no barrier of communication. But every time you inhabit a world, you must learn their ways of communicating.
So...you don't learn a language to "think" lol, you learn it to communicate between other inhabitants.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't know if you actually read my posts but if you ask something I will answer according to what I know, and some things just take time to fully answer. I know people don't like to read through large posts but some questions need a bit of clarification and elaboration. Hopefully you find something useful with my responses.
The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?
Really what it comes down to is whether or not they are adherents to that particular religion. Once someone initiates themselves into a religion, whether through choice or by their Karma they will qualify for both that religions benefits but also that religions punishments based on that persons actions, which then will dictate what they receive. It's not just one way, if there is an imposter or a poser they will inherit that systems judgement which usually extends to the afterlife.
If you think of religions in terms of Kingdoms or societies that have locations or domains in different parts of the universe and extend to the afterlife then each participant will be subject to that Kingdom, whether it's good or bad. They may get away with all kinds of atrocities while they are here, but not when they cross over, that's when they will reap everything they sowed. It's not as easy to get away with crap once you cross over (death) as it is on earth, because there are gatekeepers and not-so-stupid rulers that they must face.
So basically it doesn't really matter what people here think, because no one here will be responsible for any souls judgement. They may face persecution, be ridiculed or shunned in this life but their true accountability awaits them in the afterlife.
There's many dynamics that take place once the soul leaves the physical body and is present within the astral plane. But to keep this as short as possible each soul basically faces a type of judgement when they leave this world, and that will determine where they go next. If they qualify ("if"), they may get to inherit that religions paradise located in the astral plane on an actual planet. That will be their residence for quite some time as they learn many things and take on many responsibilities. They may also be sent to an astral prison for some time (hell) if they committed horrible crimes, or may be forced to come back to the earth (reincarnation) where they may get another chance to "get it right". There's many other options as well.
EitherThe evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'OrThe not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.
This applies to what I wrote above. You should remember that nothing is hidden in the afterlife, all things will be known and will be recorded so whatever happens here is not the total factor, not even close. A soul gets away with a lot here because they are given much grace and time to really make their choices before they face reality in the afterlife. So in other words, there may be fake Christians here, evil Muslims, dishonoring Hindus ect ect but not in the afterlife where these Kingdoms have their domains. The earth is much more like a middle grounds or a testing grounds to see what takes place when they leave, see where people really stand. You may see hypocrisy on this planet, but if you were to visit the Christian Kingdom of Heaven you wouldn't find it, because it can't exist there. No one is permitted to inherit that Kingdom who did not legitimately earn it, and who are not genuine inhabitants.
The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?
If you've payed any attention to what I have wrote before, there is no "true" religion, they all have their place within various locations in the afterworlds. Now, this is where it gets very interesting....there may not be a one true religion, but there are religions that are more advanced than others and possess greater qualities. Just like if you were to look at all the different countries, cultures, Kingdoms, tribes and regimes on earth and notice how some are much more powerful than others, perhaps more technologically advanced, possessed superior morals, had greater wealth, achieved greater things, ruled different areas of the world ect ect so are all the same factors involved with various religions located in the afterworlds.
I know it may seem like it's all the parents faults who was indoctrinated into which religion but honestly it wouldn't matter, they are just there as a means to support what was already decided, the parents are really just pawns in the grand scheme of things. You see, there's many dynamics involved with where a soul is sent to experience this world. There's more than one factor involved pertaining to which soul gets placed into which part of the world and what religion they will be subject to. Much of it pertains to a souls Karma, where they fit in and where they will learn the most from either group or part of the world.
However, Native Americans for example are souls that are very patriotic and have a lot of ancestral pride and love of their spirituality, and they carry that with them into the afterlife. This of course keeps their Kingdom alive, and their ancestral lineage strong and continuous. For those who think that their culture has perished because of what happened here have no idea, they still posses their lands in the afterlife and they know it. This truth shines through in their beliefs and the passion of their heritage. They too have their own place in the afterlife, and there is where they join their ancestors who were with them all along in spirit. They really lost nothing but their place on earth but there society extends well beyond this world.
So a soul may "want" to continue to exist along with the place they feel most attracted to and where they desire to be, other souls though may be subject to a particular religion as a punishment or a way to learn something. There are religions that have a lower level of awareness than other religion, and someone of a lower level of consciousness or experience may not be suited for a higher level conscious religion. Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.
The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct.
Correct, but what I want you to see mostly is that these social constructs extend to the afterlife, where souls are recycled, perpetuated and or advanced. Like I said above, our earthly families have little relevance to these societies that exist beyond the physical world. They are however, used to perpetuate such kingdoms to ensure they have relevance on this planet.
The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.
These are all great questions, though difficult to explain due to the dynamics involved so hopefully you read through my responses thoroughly because I can make sense of it for you. All religions exist within one massive, layered system (cosmos) and they all exist somewhere on a scale between "negative and positive" in a dualistic environment we call creation, just because they are a "religion" does not mean they abide totally on the positive side of that scale. If you study their teachings and their principles it's easy to observe where they fall within that scale. And mostly, the souls that gravitate to either part of that scale will be placed within a system that they mostly resonate with, where their level of awareness associates with most.
There can be religions or regimes (gods or rulers) that primarily operate within a negative force, some with the positive force and everything in between. This is due to the very nature of man and souls because each soul reflects a different part of that scale, and so religions likewise operate within that same frequency. If you step all the way back, at some point it was an individual person, spiritual being, or some entity that originated each religious system. And that entity resides somewhere on a scale between positive and negative, and everything that follows...including its teachings, followers and regulations reflects exactly where they stand on that scale.
So while an adherent could be very well just following their religious institutions principles and laws, they could be operating on a negative side of the scale but deemed righteous followers of their religion....according to that religions level of consciousness. But until that soul advances, perhaps desires to reach a more elevated side of the scale they will be stuck within that religious Kingdom doomed to continue the cycle of that sources advancements. Ever heard of the wheel of 84? you should get yourself familiar with that.
Religions aren't the only things that perpetuate creations experiences, they are just a part of it. There's endless places within creation and the multiverses where souls can have various experiences. Religions aren't always the best part of our journeys, but they are there for many reasons. So in effect, it may be a good thing if a soul is disqualified from being a member of religion. It may be their time to advance from that cycle, or perhaps they just don't feel as if they belong anymore. Like I said there's so many factors involved in all of this, just keep in mind that there are many societies that extend beyond this planet into the afterworlds. They have their own place within creation.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There are a lot of spirit workers taking about the collective consciousness and the powers that be using it to disrupt our nature to unify and work together via fear and hate.
Yes sure, there are many beings outside the physical world that understand how to manipulate the consciousness of man. And depending on what they wish to accomplish and what man allows it could be good or really bad. Unaware humans can have beings sitting in on their consciousness and getting fed ideas and thoughts channeled by other entities. This can happen on smaller individual scales or on a collective massive scale. This I believe is part of the destruction foretold by many ancient spiritual Masters.
Humans are going to be quite shocked when they find themselves not alone in this universe lol. Stay tuned...
Created:
-->
@janesix
This is my opinion, and I believe it.Does anyone agree?
"Have you ever heard the term “the Universal Mind?” It refers to a single, unified consciousness out of which all other consciousness arises—yours included."
"Within the Universal Mind lies untapped creativity and potential waiting to be made manifest. Unlimited possibilities beyond our wildest dreams await. Innovative ideas, inventions, and discoveries are ready to come into the world of existence. Our job: to remove the barriers that prevent us from accessing the limitless knowledge of an ever-pervasive consciousness:"
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I believe god created us for entertainment purposes.
In nutshell that's correct. God also has a creative quality which is innate to consciousness which will always seek to express itself in some form or another, hence "creation". God existing in an alone state eventually will desire to experience something totally contrived. The most ingenious thing is the way God figured out how to mask consciousness from Itself creating the illusion of duality and separation which appears through perception as being independent from God. You may ask yourself why? obviously to experience something other than being alone.
Consciousness is "separated" or divided through ranges of vibrational frequencies confined by form within creation, and God having access to each form can observe endless experiences through Its own creation. So God gets more than just watching, but also being the player....while also being the Creator of both the simulations and any being God wishes to create and put in that simulation. It's far better than any video game though, just imagine a video game that you could literally upload yourself into and literal be inside that game. This real life game has far more depth than a video game, far more features, far more characters, far more levels, far more places to play and the cool part is that each character or player has it's own objective, purpose and goal.
Now imagine all that but one more really cool element that stands out from any movie or game! the actual characters of the game begin to take on their own personas, attitudes, egos, attributes and character as they experience the game they take on their own perceptions and beliefs. What does this do? for one it gives God fresh experiences rather than being a movie director where the scripts and plays are completely written out in advance the characters instead are acting independent of the Creators knowledge. This is perhaps the most remarkable feature of creation, one in which God really enjoys and invests in.
So even though God has set the stage and created simulations, the dynamics of perceptions through consciousness created through varying experiences generates a unique and genuine experience that God can observe, so everything you do God gets to do. Isn't that badazz?
I believe in a rather deistic god overall. How about you?
There's all kinds of gods, goddesses, demigods, overlords, rulers ect ect and all these beings come out of the same Reality and are set up in many parts of God's creation as watchers that souls can experience and sojourn with. They are simply expressions of God's power and creativity. For God to be able to express Itself there must be an outlet for God to do that. In creation, God wants to be all different things and have endless types of experiences. From servant to Master all things go and all make for variances of experiences, nothing is too small and nothing is too great.
Most people don't know that polytheism is compatible with deism and monotheism! folks assume it's either one or the other but not so...many gods come out of One God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I say it was chance,
Why of course you do silly, you're simple minded and a one-dimensional thinker. If you even think for yourself at all. Do you think that surprised any of us? "Chance" is the first assumption that flies across your radar and you grasp for it like it's your last breathe lol. Then you hold and cradle it as if it's all you'll ever need. God you're depressing.
and because of that there is no other human life in the Universe other than that on Earth.
Correct simpleton...because "human" life was created as a match for its own environment, meaning that humans can only exist on our planet earth, as they are (without modifications). Other galaxies, stars and planets have lifeforms that match their own ecosystems and solar arrangements. They have evolved through intelligent processes as totally different species.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If you want to get my attention you're going to have to get for real. I'm not going to play your game, if you want answers you're going to have to drop the baloney and I want to see some sincerity or you'll be chasing the wind. I want to see something totally different from you, so stop the act and be a man for once. Surprise me with something new, fresh and show me the real you. Once you've done that we can have a real discussion. There's nothing you have that I want and I'm never going to need answers from you in any way. As of yet, you have nothing that stimulates my intellectual interests so if you want a real response you better get a hold of yourself.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I still have hope that this is it.
Well then for you it won't really matter because when you wake up in a new body, perhaps a new world it will be like you just began to exist just like in this body. You won't know anything about your soul or that it is eternal. In that light, it's kinda interesting, your perceptions will be confined to whatever form you take on and it will be like a brand new experience so at one level the fact you will always exist won't matter until you really want to know. Eventually though when you get sick of not knowing you will want to know and you will not be scared of it. You will face it head on, and your experiences will take on greater journeys, you will have more control over your destinations.
Who wants to live forever? Now that s a nightmare.
I can see why you think that so imagine how the Creator feels and why simulations exist, and why you exist within them. However, God will have mercy on your feelings and you will never know until you are ready so you won't be required to absorb something you find disturbing. You'll simply wake up in a whole new experience not knowing where you came from and have no knowledge of anything prior.
Just know that I can help you whenever you feel you need answers or someone to relate to. You're not alone, we are all in this together.
Created:
What is so difficult about ceasing to exist that everyone assumes the proposition of an afterlife is a way to cope with it? when a person ceases to exist that includes all feelings, sensations, memories, thoughts, desires, fears or anything that is known. With everything that is known ceasing to exist one wouldn't even know they ever existed or even ceased to exist, so what would matter once you ceased to exist?? In many ways that sounds like a great idea, if only it were true.
Why would anyone even care that they would cease to exist if they wouldn't even be aware of anything at all? that's not a stressful idea and that means there's no reason to have to make up some baloney to cope with ceasing to exist. Spiritual people aren't here to make up little fantasies and lie to people. Many spiritual people have a deep desire to uncover reality that is detached from anything they wish to be true. Many spiritual people base their knowledge from experience and observations, which are independent of their personal aspirations or desires.
As I pointed out, I don't give a fudge about what I personally want in relation to acquiring truthful data. If I didn't whole-heartedly know or believe that consciousness moves on after the death of the physical body I would just say so, but the conviction of my own conscience propels me to state what is absolutely a surety and it being some coping mechanism has nothing to do with it at all. In many ways it simply doesn't matter whether or not anyone accepts that, when they die they will inevitably leave the physical body and then they will see it wasn't just a pipedream or fantasy.
Then it seems why would I even care then right? What concerns me is that people know the truth about reality because it is something that deeply convicts me, why shouldn't they know something of so much significance? with so many variables and implications...I think people should be prepared for what awaits them rather than them being blind-sided or ill equipped for their journey. Why? I guess because one should have a plan or map to know where they are going and what they may encounter and be able to have some control over that. I mean random road trips are fun and all where you just take off and have no plan or map of where you are going but most real journeys require the person know their destination, choose their destination and who they abide with when they get there. I don't know it just seems important to me maybe it's not for others, I don't even know if anyone cares at all but that would truly puzzle me.
And to top it all off, being unaware of the whole thing because some doofus assumed people just make stuff up because they can't deal with reality is very unfortunate. It would be much like there being a pot of gold or a treasure chest buried under your house and someone giving you the knowledge that it's there and how to get it and you just ignored them because you thought the whole idea was just too good to be true, or perhaps you thought that person was nuts. Now just imagine that the treasure chest was actually there and not just some loonies fantasy! well I guess you missed out but imagine if you uncovered it and got to have the benefits of having that hidden treasure.
People should be keenly aware that spirituality is a very real thing, it's not a game or a fakery.
The fact that the soul exists has huge implications and I couldn't imagine that anyone would want to miss out on such knowledge or simply blow it off because they happen to be currently unaware of that reality. Give it some thought, consider it and look at the correlating evidence that supports it. Spirituality will give you clues and tools that help you discover things of this nature but one has to become awake and aware of them and apply them. If the soul exists, and exists in an eternal reality it should be innate to anyone who really begins to look within at a deep level. It should be innate because you are that, that is the reality you came out of and exist within. Ceasing to exist then should not feel innate, should feel unnatural to your eternal soul...check yourself and let yourself be open to that.
Becoming aware of the fact you are a soul is only the beginning of the massive reality before you and what that entails for your personal journey.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What part of my post to you linked below scared you the most?
It's a toss up between your profile pic, your fake act and your lack of intelligent dialogue. Not sure which one repels me the most.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's the thought of non-existence that's harder to come to terms with.
No it's not. Non-existence is the easiest thing to come to terms with. Grow up.
Ans it don't matter if you've spent your whole life tended to the needs of the sick and the poor, if you ain't done your praying, then you ain't gettin in buddy.
And this is where your ignorance of anything related to spirituality really shines through. It's unfortunate how many of you have no clue.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What do all religions have in common?
They have things in common because we all operate under the same universal system and yet there are things that are unique to each religious source because they are a society of its own, with their own locations and own rulers. There is a place in creation for any given society that extends beyond this planet. Did you read my post above? they are ALL part of a massive chain of events and places that exist. Not one of them is right, not all of them are wrong, rather when souls exit the body they move on to their place they choose to abide within and that is the place they inherit given that their actions don't dictate that they must suffer. And suffering doesn't mean they burn in hell, it could mean they have to live a life of unfortunate events whether that be here or elsewhere.
If they qualify as a soul who gets to advance to a more elevated part of creation then they may inherit all the benefits their society has offered them. If they do not qualify they don't. Simple as that. If a soul has no place within religious squares and cares not for their society there's many other places for them too, given that they deserve to move forward. This is not nearly the end of any souls experience either, this one transfer to the other is only a single step in the long journey of the soul. If you have accepted that you disappear when you die here you are in for a big surprise.
I don't just mean an afterlife but that surely is part of it.
That's because an afterlife is very much a part of every persons experience. Would you rather not hear the truth? what makes you believe you will dissipate along with your physical shell? your spiritual forefathers have put in many hours of blood, sweat and tears for you to be privy to such informative news and you think it's because they need a coping mechanism lol? that's an insult to all of us who would tell you the same thing over, this has nothing to do with what any of us "want" to be true, that is not how observation and revelations work. That is not the motive any of us have in the discovery of the Creators work.
Enlighten me as to your answer, because ultimately it boils down to two things:
Do you want an answer?
Avoiding admitting that we genuinely will die.
Maybe you believe someone is avoiding something because you've got it stuck in your head that it doesn't happen. I can't help you there, what you convince yourself of is nothing I can stop. If you want answers that are genuine and true, you will have to ask and be willing to move with the truth. I can make sense of it for you, but you're going to have to extend curtesy and quit making shallow judgments that don't represent what is honest and legit.
Justifying being a pushover now for a long-term reward much later.
This creation is driven by cause and effect as it should be. What that entails is that people experience only what they truly deserve, not what they believe. That could be rewards and it could be punishments. That's not just a religious quality that is the fundamental principle we all experience and how we set up our societies. We have jails that restrain criminals and we have benefits for those who want to work hard, be a team player in society and achieve a great future why does that seem to bother you when it extends to religious experience?? it has nothing to do with being weak or gullible, rather it ensures that those who commit to living in harmony with creation get the better of it. But again, this has nothing to do with superficial crap that you might see with shallow religious people, this is all based upon how we live our lives. Religious people will suffer the same consequences under the same laws because beliefs matter not.
Spiritual Masters are not pushovers, they will be some of the strongest, genuine, loyal and truthful souls you will ever encounter and they come in many forms and sojourn in many parts of the world....many of them have descended into human form just to give mankind slices of truth to uncover, and they did that knowing they were coming back into a brutal environment where they left beautiful places. If someone wants to be a pushover then that is what will dictate their experiences, and their spiritual journey will set them up to learn from their mistakes, the same with all of us depending on what weaknesses we are subject to.
But being a pushover has nothing to do with the reality of what exists beyond this world, make no mistake about that. Abiding under the laws of cause and effect and learning to work with the positive forces in creation is not being a pushover, because it's not always the easy path and with that will come much opposition and many times hardship. The more a soul wants to learn the truth about reality the more they will have to face it head on. Don't kid yourself thinking that it's the hard road just standing back and judging everyone and getting involved with nothing.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
BTW it may come across as me coming down on you but honestly I only said it this way because I think you can handle it. You seem like you're searching for the truth in some ways, but at the same time you don't trust yourself or others for that matter to relay it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is horrific for egocentric people and so they create a fairytale that tells them
This sounds to me like you just wanted to come here and preach, perhaps burn off some steam. In this case I'd really rather not respond to any of it, because posts like these it doesn't matter if one responds to it even if the responses were true. On the other hand, since you felt so free to be so blunt and pig-headed it makes me want to tell you how ignorant this whole topic is.
The funny part is that I'm not even all that "religious" so why would I care what you think anyways? I mean really all you did was repeat a bunch of generic ill-informed nonsense atheists have been touting what they copied from their atheist Masters for years on end. Stupid Theists right? what do they know about a reality they have been learning from since humans have existed? silly Theists always dreaming up nonsense because they are too afraid to face reality as it is right? everything they claim is based off what they wish to be true so it's all just a coping mechanism correct? well then....since I'm an atheist or some snot nosed fool who refuses to step onto one side of the fence that's what all my beliefs will be based upon! since consciousness surviving death can't be true, and the proposition of an afterlife is simply a fairy tale then I'm just going to believe that it's all just a coping mechanism Theists make up to relieve themselves from the gloomy facts of life. Besides, who are they that I can learn anything about reality from right? how could I ever learn anything from from a bunch of primitive, ignorant goatherders from the bronze age about life?
Lol, the truth is that people who tell themselves that religions and religious propositions are just coping mechanisms and results of wishful thinking aren't paying attention. These are folks who have put very little time in researching the depths of religious claims. They have put very little thought into the implications of an eternal Creator, what that means and what it may entail and believe it or not have avoided considering the obvious correlations between religious propositions about an afterlife and the life in which we observe here on earth. In other words, if God exists then what we see here reflects what exists when we leave this world in many ways. It seems to me if someone wanted to create a fantasy that avoided the fundamentals of our reality they would have been a lot more creative...
Pretty much everything that has been proposed at least through religious sources is simply an EXTENSION of what we encounter HERE, whether it be elevated or not. So I fail to see how such proposals amount to coping mechanisms, since a failure to cope with reality would entail we escape the very facts of life and what we experience here correct? wouldn't it be stupid for those who can't cope with reality create an extension that reflects the very things they wish to escape?
If those who wanted to create a pipedream fantasy story book about an afterlife where everything was just so fun and cozy they did a horrible job at it. If they wanted to sucker people into buying into the idea of a paradise where suffering no longer exists and the consequences of their actions have no relevance they did a piss poor job at it. Why would they even bother with a Ruler or King that is bothered with the concerns of morality in any way at all? With only a handful of passages in the Bible about a paradise beyond the immediate physical world (for those who live righteously) and the rest of the book about the cruel facts and suffering of life, moral principles and reality about our actions in an attempt to create some fictional fantasy land it's a complete failure!
For those who were butchered or murdered simply for their beliefs who just couldn't cope with the hardships of life and suffering they sure didn't face them eh?
I mean why the hell would an eternal Creator create more than one measly planet to live on with one lifespan to experience anyways? what sense does that make right?
-The bottom line is that you seem to be a person very unfamiliar with the reality and implications of an eternal creative Force. And in that your scope of reality is very jaded and limited.
- Atheists basically have no idea what the fck is going on despite the illusion they think they do know, all their silly assumptions revolve around the idea that Theists are deluded, stupid, mentally deranged and they just create coping mechanisms to deal with the realities of life. Atheists are mental midgets. The irony is they believe they are the mental giants lol.
- For those who go around claiming we can't know anything about God or we have no access to all the facts about life are deluded dimwits to be frank. They'll never know anything even if the truth shows up at the doorstep. Their awareness is simply forever in the clouds and their perceptions of existence will always appear hazy and too far fetched to ever be grasped.
- Most religions were never an attempt to evade or escape reality, they are based upon observations of this life and transcendental experiences.
-Spirituality is the opposite of wishful thinking, it's funny that people don't know that. Spirituality opposes what the individual wishes and wants, that assumption couldn't be any further from the truth.
- Are religious propositions all that exist within creation? hell no! absolutely not.... not at all but they do have relevance because they exist within a cosmos of experiences that go well beyond those propositions! they are only one part of a grand scheme of the journey of the eternal soul. Those extended societies only fit into a massive, layered hierarchy of experiences people normally have zero perception of. People really have no clue what an eternal creative Force creates, they have no perspective of what that means and that's okay because their little narrow perspective means everything to their personal journey. But for those who desire more out of life should not be fooled into thinking that religions are just made up nonsense, rather they should consider accepting them as just a part of God's eternal creative play for the souls who inhabit creation and that there is much more to experience beyond them.
- The soul can't be what the Creator is not, because the soul is the only one thing that directly reflects exactly what is the Creator, it is made up of the very fundamental nature of God and can be nothing else. If God is eternal, the soul must be by necessity. That has nothing to do with avoiding reality or creating coping mechanisms, it is the very essence of what consciousness is and will always be. I'm saying this from a position where I personally don't give a fck what I want to be true. Honestly, whether or not it is a fact has nothing to do with what I want or wish, I don't care one way or another, but I'm not going to avoid it either and I have no intention of saying this to avoid the facts of life.
And in this reality God has elaborated on it, so God has accommodated the eternal nature of the soul by preparing many places of experience. And the varying nature of what exists beyond this world reflects the creative nature of God, it has nothing to do with human coping mechanisms. If anything it's GODS coping mechanism not ours because the Creator also has an investment is all of this....
Yes we die, nobody is denying we lose the physical body but yes the soul moves on to the next experience. This will always be a part of creation whether or not we believe someone is pulling our chains about it, it's simply what will happen. NDE's, spiritual experience and paranormal encounters show this to be true, so we also have evidence to support the proposition. But again, I don't give a rats arse about what I want to be true, my life doesn't reflect someone who tries to avoid reality as it is, and TBH surviving death is not as comforting as people would assume because some of our experiences with life have been not so pleasant, why torture ourselves with the prospect of continuing it? I mean really come on...
What exists on the other side is not just fun and games, not in any stretch of the imagination. Yes, paradises exist beyond what you could ever dream of in many parts of creation, because beauty and creativity are simply a part of God, but there will always be the dual side of that because to have beauty there must be grotesque features as well. Just as beautiful a thing you could imagine, the most disturbing thing you could imagine exists as well. Knowing that the soul could sojourn in any environment is not a fun thought, at least not for me so again, not something I wish to be a part of.
We are probably in a simulation, I'm not sure why and don't think that pretending you know the reason why is intellectually honest/genuine
Ahh yes, because Madman has no clue why a simulation exists or what that even entails anyone who "pretends" to know anything is just being intellectually dishonest lol, what a joke. Have you ever thought about how ignorant that statement is? why do you believe there are limits to what you can know or what others can know? who made that rule? and who's to say that what somebody knows is all that exists? lets say they only know part of what exists, they only have knowledge of one fraction of what exists? why make the assumption that what they know does not reflect reality in some fashion of the other? if you don't know, why does that mean nobody should know anything? does your own ignorance reflect what can be known or what should be known?
It's not as complicated an answer you might think it is. Lets see, it sounds like you've concluded at least that we probably exist within some kind of a simulation right? so lets take it a step further, someone created the simulation correct? well that's easy, now ask yourself, why would anyone create a simulation? if it were you, why would YOU create a simulation? what would be the point of that? it's not that hard to determine why someone would create a simulation...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
To put it in terms that Janesix could possibly relate to better, I would say that faith could also be called a force for the channeling of energy. And the amount of energy (faith) that can be channeled is unlimited. Once you understand that religions make up terms for experiences, laws or principles they observe that may already have a meaning or word then somethings can be better articulated. For example "Karma" which is just another term for the law of cause and effect, "sin" is just another word for bad behavior, "reincarnation" is just another word for life after death and the transmigration of the soul to another experience, being "saved" is just another way of saying spiritual development, "revelation" is another term for awakening or enlightenment and so forth. And of course "faith" is simply another word for strong trust and confidence, faith then being grounded upon good reason and evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I really don't understand faith. It seems a bit silly to believe in something you cannot prove, at least to yourself.
It depends really, because from what I can tell most individuals have a faulty idea of what it is, what it means. It seems the general assumption is that faith means to accept or believe things for no reason or evidence, which basically strips it from having any real meaning at all. Faith, as in spiritual faith is supposed to have an actual function or have an actual useful meaning like most other spiritual tools.
I say there's probably three roles (definitions) or usages of faith with "believing in things with no reason or evidence" as the least of them, which is the weakest form of that term. In reality that makes faith a nonword. I mean what is it really to believe something with having no proof or rationale to support it? that's stupid because even to believe in something one must have at least reasoning behind it to accept it and honestly faith is much stronger than belief because it's another word for trust and confidence.
That's really all faith is at its core is to have very strong trust in someone or something. Religions just have their own words to describe something at a spiritual level so both faith and confidence can be used synonymously, however the average atheist would love to rehash the misconception that faith is to just believe in any ol thing with no reason or evidence. Because to them anything pertaining to spirituality is a joke and so that meaningless term just fits the bill for them.
But to have complete trust and confidence (faith) in something is to be based upon very strong reason and evidence no? of course, because one cannot have trust in something without there first being an element that undergirds such a level of confidence. You could say that a married couple who's been faithfully engaged with each other for decades has complete trust in the other person, and their faith in one another is grounded upon years of developing that confidence in one another through experience KNOWING that there is good reason and evidence to believe in their relationship.
If you read the Gospels where faith originated you can see very clearly how faith is depicted. It is based upon ones confidence in God, and ones confidence in God is rooted in experience and good reason, which makes for levels of faith ranging from "small (little) to big (great) faith". "Ye of little faith....ye of great faith".....Because each individual has their own level of trust for God based upon their experience and knowledge. The more experience, evidence and knowledge of God the greater the faith, and the less experience, evidence and knowledge of God the lesser the faith.
This is the second usage of the term faith which brings me to the the third now that we acknowledge faith is based upon strong supporting reason and experience (evidence) to have trust and confidence in something. Without strong reasoning and evidence there can be no trust and confidence in a thing.
The third and perhaps the most beneficial and solid form of faith is what I call an action. This is when a persons faith has become so refined and solidified that a person can put their "faith" in something and cause change, or invoke change. This is also clearly articulated in the Gospels when Jesus talks about faith "moving mountains"....and of course we know Jesus was not talking about rearranging landscapes rather Jesus was saying that faith can be used as a way to bring about results in a persons life (to move obstacles). When a persons confidence and trust (faith) has become an immovable force it can be applied to anything and the potential for anything to happen becomes a reality, they can literally move "mountains", of course that being figurative language to mean "bring about results".
You can see that faith is a universal tool, and people all throughout history have used faith to change the world in many respects, faith can even be used in relation to sports or anything there is a passion to achieve something great. When a person believes (has faith) without wavering (confidence) they can achieve whatever it is they set their faith to. And when you add God to the equation the sky is the limit to what faith can accomplish.
This is somewhat of a rare state to see in this world and you don't see it very often, but there are many examples of people having great faith to change the coarse of the world. Martin Luther King stands out to me at the moment of someone who had great faith to change the world in a time where it seemed impossible to change. His faith overrided reality. But there are many more examples with Jesus being one of them.
People don't really recognize what he did through faith because Christianity has become such a generic force, with little meaning behind it anymore. But in reality Jesus resurfaced the face of religion in a time where religious force ruled the world. Think about one man for a short amount of time coming in and overturning the whole system! Jesus did that with faith being the main source of His achievement. He died for it sure, but not without changing the whole world and how people viewed God. I don't even have to use Jesus as an example, I'm sure you get the point. The point is that faith actually has a legit meaning, even though it's simply trust and confidence given another name. It's anything but "silly".
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you have no explanation for why people at that of death just happen to hallucinate after life stories
Just so we're on the same page here, NDE's are not hallucinations (not saying you believe that). Hallucinations are a malfunction of consciousness, an aberration of what is actually happening. NDE's are clear conscious experiences that are based on reality not faulty perception of something false. The only people asserting NDE's are "probably" some sort of "hallucinations" are those who don't think there's an afterlife experience and those who never had that experience. They call them hallucinations because they've made up their silly minds that consciousness can only be observed through human earthly bodies.
Hallucinations are not clearly depicted, clearly articulated and understood conscious experiences. That's because they are either triggered by chemical processes or a malfunction of the brain itself. NDE's do not fall into that scenario, they are observations outside the body and confines of the brain and they are very actual encounters of crystal clear conscious experience.
Just like when you visit another location or go on vacation somewhere, you're simply experiencing that location by leaving your current residence....when the soul detaches from the physical body it's like you experiencing another plane of reality, and you are actually there observing what it is that exists elsewhere. When you die, your conscious being simply moves to another level of creation, nothing changes except you leave your physical body behind. And really, that physical body was nothing but a vehicle that you temporarily used to interact within this word. Once that vehicle can no longer be used it's gone but you still exist.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A lot to consider.
Well that's all one could hope for.
But nonetheless, nothing to affect the bottom line.... Death is Death.
Actually the whole point of this is show that's not the bottom line lol.
ND and subsequent recovery is not death.
Did you read my post? Whether or not you consider it a real death is irrelevant. The point is to show that consciousness is not dependent upon a brain or brain activity. Even though an NDE is basically a temporary "death" I'm not really going to argue that. It's pointless to a guy like you who will just say "it's not really death".
And "hours later" was left a grey area....As autolysis is a rapid and almost instantaneous process that occurs after actual death.
Do you understand that a NDE is consciousness traveling freely outside the physical body? no longer confined by the domain of the brain?
So an NDE is just that, and may be a normal physiological response in ND situations.....
This is not a "physiological response", it is a clear experience of consciousness outside the body. Call it an OBE if you're feeling reluctant about NDE terminology. The point here, is that we have a clear proposition (soul) and obvious correlating evidence that supports the proposition. I can't make you accept something so obvious but I didn't think you would anyways. That's how we roll around here, nobody comes here to change their views.
Created:
"Why an NDE can be scientifically verified"
"Since NDE experiences often happen in hospital settings with professional medical oversight, thousands of NDEs have been sufficiently well-documented for scientific study.
A near death experience occurs when someone has limited brain function, yet is able to have a sensory experience without full use of their physical senses.
But scientifically speaking, what is considered a near death experience?
According to the strict science of near-death experiences, a person must have a flat EEG (electroencephalogram) indicating an absence of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex (generating higher cerebral functioning), the absence of gag reflex, and fixed and dilated pupils, indicating a significant reduction of lower brain functioning.
In this state, sensory organs are non-functional, both in themselves, and in the brain’s capacity to process their signals. Furthermore, higher cerebral functions such as thinking, processing memories, and linguistic functions are either completely absent or reduced to insignificant."
"Despite the inability to process sensory information (see above), patients describe events, feelings, and sensations—it is these experiences that we categorize as “near death experiences”."
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Number one, whether or not someone is determined as clinically dead is irrelevant because I'm not making the argument that NDE's show that people have "died" and moved on. Rather I'm using them to show that consciousness is not dependent upon brain activity and that the soul exists independent of the body. If a persons physical body has been severely damaged to the point where the soul can no longer use that body they will never recover that body, the soul will move on. But instances where accidents occur before a persons time is up here on this planet and the body is still fit for recovery that soul may be permitted or even encouraged to continue their experience within that body.
And the key feature of an NDE is that they occur after a person has "flatlined", in other words no longer show signs of heart or brain activity. There's a great documentary series called "I Survived...Beyond and Back" which gives detailed accounts of NDE's and the correlating medical facts and even Doctor statements in relation to each case. Even if you scoff at the testimonials one is forced to recognize the medical statistics that support the facts of each occurrence, so I would recommend setting aside some time to at least watch the program. This is not the only series either there are more but this one I like because it's un-biased and it gives you the medical facts behind the testimonies.
The fact of the matter is, it can be shown that NDE's occur even during complete brain death and up to hours later.
So how can this be "shown"?
You can start by watching the documentary above, or you can research it yourself.
"FLATLINE Neurology A popular term for a complete lack of cerebral activity as measured by EEG, a finding equated with 'brain death'."
"Medical Definition of flatline 1 : to register on an electronic monitor as having no heartbeat or brain waves : to experience cessation of heart contractions or brain wave activity as indicated by a flat line on a electrocardiogram or electroencephalogram"
"To show a horizontal line on the monitor of an electrocardiogram or an electroencephalogram, indicating no electrical activity."
"A flatline is an electrical time sequence measurement that shows no activity and therefore, when represented, shows a flat line instead of a moving one. It almost always refers to either a flatlined electrocardiogram, where the heart shows no electrical activity (asystole), or to a flat electroencephalogram, in which the brain shows no electrical activity (brain death). Both of these specific cases are involved in various definitions of death."
"People Have Near-Death Experiences While Brain Dead"
"three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function."
When all of Pam's vital signs were stopped, the doctor turned on a surgical saw and began to cut through Pam's skull. While this was going on, Pam reported that she felt herself "pop" outside her body and hover above the operating table. Then she watched the doctors working on her lifeless body for awhile. From her out-of-body position, she observed the doctor sawing into her skull with what looked to her like an electric toothbrush. Pam heard and reported later what the nurses in the operating room had said and exactly what was happening during the operation. At this time, every monitor attached to Pam's body registered "no life" whatsoever."
"Current research contends the strongest lines of evidence supporting the veracity of the near-death experience remain OBEs, NDEs in the congenitally blind, and those which occur under general anesthesia, and during cardiac arrest. Each of these lines of reasoning arrive at the same postulate to explain NDE’s: that heightened, lucid consciousness occurs when the heart stops beating, the brain demonstrates no measurable activity or function, and breathing ceases. NDEs which occur during cardiac arrest however, remain the closest model of the process of dying, and are considered the most objective and scientific method to study brain, mind, and consciousness at a time of clinical death. This is because from a biological standpoint, cardiac arrest is the same as clinical death, or “flatline”. The medical community uses these terms interchangeably.
Clinical death has traditionally been defined when three biological parameters are met; there is no heartbeat, there is no breathing, and there is no brain function-this is determined when a light is shone into the eyes and there are fixed, dilated pupils which indicate a lack of brain stem activity. Death, as indicated from the above three parameters, follows very quickly from the moment when the heart stops beating. This is due to a lack of blood flow into the vital organs including the brain itself."
"EEG Expert Can’t Explain Near Death Experience Data… and, Dr. Penny Sartori Finds More Than Hallucinations in NDE Accounts"
"For near death experience skeptics, medical evidence of a flat EEG during an out of body experience has always been a stumbling block."
"Near-death experiences are one of the most puzzling phenomena in psychology. A near-death experience is when a person appears to be clinically ‘dead’ for a short period—when their heart stops beating, their brain registers no sign of activity, and the other vital signs indicate death—and yet they report a continuation of consciousness."
"Some People Were Dead For Several Days"
"Dannion Brinkley had a near-death experience (NDE) that lasted 28 minutes."
"CRYSTAL-CLEAR CONSCIOUSNESS. The level of conscious alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life - even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. This high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained. Additionally, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and around the world, which refutes the possibility that NDEs have any relation to dreams or hallucinations."
"NDEs by the Numbers Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by an estimated 200,000 Americans a year, and studies around the world suggest NDEs are a common human experience."
"Up to 2005, 95% of world cultures are known to have made some mention of NDEs."
"the most popular interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience". The NDE would then represent evidence of the supposedly immaterial existence of a soul or mind, which would leave the body upon death. An NDE would then provide information about an immaterial world where the soul would journey upon ending its existence on earth."
"NDEs Absolutely, Positively NOT Caused By Malfunctioning Brains"
“The most reasonable neuroscientific explanation of NDEs, the one that accounts best for all the data, is that NDEs are not a product of brain activity at all. They result, instead, from the removal of the brain’s filtering activity."
“The sheer volume of evidence for survival after death is so immense that to ignore it is like standing at the foot of Mount Everest and insisting that you cannot see the mountain.”
“No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain."
"Near-death experiences have been well documented all over the world. They do not seem to be culturally motivated nor do they have bias when it comes to age or gender."
"The International Association for Near-Death Studies says: “Every day in the U.S. 800 near-death experiences occur.”
"Around 85% of the people who experienced near-death states say that their lives were forever changed by the experience. These changes can have a profound positive effect on the individual.
Psychological changes include no longer having a fear of death, and becoming more spiritual rather than religious and having increased psychic abilities. They are known to become engaged in abstract thinking, that on a philosophical level."
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
People who speculate that the brain is the only thing responsible for conscious life will always seek to confirm that through their reasoning and understanding of the world, and we all know what that is called. If the soul exists as it exists independent of the physical body then we should have at least some form of evidence to show that it is a true proposition or some kind of correlating support. We have more than enough if we look at spiritual phenomenon as a whole, which also includes a massive field of witness through NDE's....which IS.... a direct first hand fact that the soul exists independent of the physical body. Paranormal encounters also show that entities exist outside the immediate physical realm, which also supports that consciousness is not anywhere close to being confined to human brains, or any brain matter.
What I find to be unmistakable about NDE's is that they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness can be experienced outside the domains of a physical brain, whereas the normal perceptions of conscious awareness always take place within the observation point of the human body. Dreams are a poor example and it's funny anyone would use that as a means of proving anything about NDE's. It's like they think people are stupid and don't know the difference between being consciously "awake" and having a dream. When we wake up from dreaming we always know that we were dreaming because the experience is distinct from the real life waking state, and people who have experienced the soul leaving the body always know they were NOT dreaming, as a matter of fact they always testify how much more aware they were than in the physical body.
Hallucinations are a stupid example also, and again treat people as if they are ignorant and can't tell reality from fiction. And most of the time these occurrences happen to otherwise perfectly normal and healthy individuals who know what conscious experience is and how to distinguish it from some hallucination, I mean come on, it doesn't matter to those who have already decided to believe that any conscious observations independent of the physical world don't occur. So it simply has no relevance whether or not there is sufficient evidence despite that speculation.
The fact of the matter is, it can be shown that NDE's occur even during complete brain death and up to hours later. Meaning there is correlating medical evidence that NDE's are taking place with zero brain activity! and we know through the testimonies that the person is having conscious experience AWAY from the confines of the physical body, meaning being able to travel through space an time from a separate location outside the body. This does not happen when the brain is the individuals observation point, the brain is responsible for confining a person experience to a physical body and the moment the body shuts down the soul detaches from the body and is able to travel feely outside that body. And we can show that through the evidence and not just making claims about a soul. So here we have a proposition that's been put forward for thousands of years and we have mounds of correlating evidence that supports that claim and people want to believe something they can never substantiate.
The brain is nothing more than an electrical component/conduit that isolates a souls experience to the confines of this world through the physical body, it has nothing to do with creating or generating a persons being. That persons conscious awareness exists independent of a brain (AKA soul).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting we should all stop thinking for ourselves and just listen to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
To elaborate a bit, awareness does not need or depend on time to exist, it is simply there, it exists whether or not an event passes. To observe an event however, awareness (consciousness) would then depend upon something taking place and something taking place would then depend upon what we perceive as movement or a succession of events unfolding (time).
Just for fun lets use an analogy here so you may have something to conceptualize. Pretend that you are in a room as you probably are, and in that room there is nothing but you and a TV. Let's pretend that you as the observer in that room exist within an environment where there is no passing of events, it is simply timeless, a fixed state of existence where you are just aware of nothing but yourself...and there is no movement of events, birth and death or a clock ticking away.
Now lets pretend that the TV in that room represents events, and every time you turn on that TV there begins a moving picture play of activity and things that you can observe taking place. And once you turn on that TV time begins to exist because events (movies) begin to unfold. So basically once you begin to watch TV you now have a measure of "time" because you have an event that appears and has a time frame where that event ends but as soon as the movie ends time stops again, because there is no measure of something beginning and ending.
Creation represent that TV, and you represent God or an eternal fixed state of awareness that exists independent of that TV (time), or at least what takes place within that TV. When there is no TV playing, there is no passing of events, or measurement of "time".
So while time can be experienced, it's only experienced as events that take place within that TV and to anyone playing those roles within that TV, otherwise there is no time frame because there is no real measurement without observing what it is you're watching through that TV. Time then is only an illusion and only relative to those who experience it and even experiencing it doesn't make it exist eternally but rather temporally. Time is only a temporal event only within a created reality. However, reality exists independent of time. So no matter if time passes or not reality still resides.
This is kind of a strange analogy just trying to make it easy to conceptualize so that it makes some sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
But it has a fatal flaw: without time "succession" has no meaning.
Right, because time is a succession of events within the universe. A "succession" is only relative to time, that is, time passing which is measured by the scale of things that exist. Things that exist (appear and dissipate) are contingent upon the time scale that matter resides in. God is not contingent upon the scale of time that matter is subjected to, those events appear within a static, eternal reality (backdrop) where a succession of events have no relevance. In other words God observes from a state of existence where God is not affected by the appearance of form within creation.
There is no flaw, perhaps you didn't fully absorb what I wrote, read it again. I clearly made the distinction between a fixed state of existence and a succession of events within that Reality.
It has more significance than people would perceive at first glance because they're already too accustomed to the way they understand time. But it is simple really, God does not exist in a time frame of an infinite past and future, if you think about it that makes no sense and is impossible. What is an infinite past? if God has no beginning and no ending there is no linear scale, if anything more of a cyclical reality if fixed is too difficult to swallow. An infinite past is not possible, time is an illusion because it is a created event within a timeless Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Calvinism confuses people, it's just a backwards concept about God. The whole idea about predetermination, omniscience and predestination are misconstrued and distorted. Sometimes man just thinks too hard about things that are intrinsically and intuitively easy to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
All ideas are conceptual and descriptively convenient of how we view the world in which we experience.
Correct.
They’re not universal in a cosmological nor human sense. They’re not pre-programmed in us nor reside within the ether.
We're not talking about ideas here, where something needs to be recognized through cognition. The OP said universal truths, I'm assuming that means things that exist that are true regardless of perception....could be wrong though but it wasn't made clear, it's just the words he chose to use. Like the law gravity for example (a universal truth), does it need cognition to exist? if a triangle existed....does it need cognition to exist with three sides?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What if god directly contacted you and proved they were god but told you that the only way you can stay in touch and experience your privileges (which may include getting into the heaven) is if you never talked about the god to others and kept it a secret, perhaps even masquerading as an atheist or at least agnostic?Would you lie to everyone you knew?
Is keeping quiet about something personal you know of considered lying? most people don't give a fig about what others believe, I've learned that a long time ago. Makes me wonder why I share anything anymore lol.
Nothing I see wrong here with obtaining something special and then keeping it that way. But in all honesty, the question of the OP seems kinda strange. What are you trying to discover here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
For a concept to exist, it has to be apprehended first.
He's making that point in P3, I believe he's just making a distinction between "human" cognition as opposed to a "universal" cognition (AKA God). This would be the point of the OP's conclusion (P3-P7).
However, the poster never said specifically "concepts" even though he provided examples. "Universal truths" more precisely, so that doesn't mean just concepts so the question comes into play which I brought up above is that does it require cognition for universal truths to exist. Maybe universal laws would be more appropriate here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Time exists as a measurement of events unfolding but time is an illusion to the backdrop of reality (which is unchanging, static or fixed). The universe, or that which exists within the universe is nothing more than a moving picture play of energy with the birth and death of matter through form on top of a timeless fabric as we observe it as a measurement of "time" (passing).
Preceding the appearance of energy as kinetic energy is the static eternal presence of consciousness, what we call God (without beginning or ending)....the conscious awareness of God out of which all things originate. In this preceding state of existence there is no infinite past or future in terms of how we measure time, because it is independent of the movement of events within the universe. It is indeed the backdrop behind the birth and death scale of material existence.
This of course deals with the infinite regression paradox because there is no infinite past in terms of the measurement of time, God does not exist on a linear scale of time only matter does (or the appearance of matter). God exists as an eternal fixed state of awareness.
So while we experience time and can observe time it is simply an illusion in relation to an eternal Reality. Does it exist? sure, but it's a temporal succession of events which appear out of a fixed, static timeless state of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
My guess would be that the atheist is going to take issue beginning with P3, and tell you to support that claim and that cognition is not required for universal truths to exist. So while P4 and P5 and so on would be true you must first establish P3 before they are accepted. So if it were me, I'd tighten up P3 or add another component to make it more convincing.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Bible was written as a political lubricant to justify heinous conquering and masking it behind a moral code.
I'm not arguing anything as of yet, I'm just trying to understand the methods in which you arrive at conclusions and if they make sense. I'm not sure if this was an answer to my last question, but it doesn't seem to fit IMO.
Was the OT written as a means to subdue and manipulate the Jewish culture at that time? I guess at some level you could make that argument based on its contents but that doesn't seem to fit with the agendas of the authors or characters of the scriptures. I don't believe that particular culture or its leaders depicted in the Bible had any agendas of heinous conquering that seems ridiculous. To me, it seems more likely they were subject to fear and uncertainty through the relentless pursuit of opposing cultures with the agendas of mass conquering and they were more or less forced into a position of protection and defense (survival).
I mean given the nature of that time period, if a culture wanted to survive in such a brutal environment they too had to be brutal just to remain alive, kill or be killed right?
Was the Bible written to subjugate the masses under political authority and agenda? I don't think so. It doesn't fit the narratives instead seems to contradict that assertion and in fact serves to undermine political control in many ways. I could see perhaps how it "could" be used as a means to control people but I don't think that was the intentions of the writers. Besides the fact that religion had yet separated from politics the Bible is a spiritual book, which emphasizes authority outside of worldly affairs.
Much less we have the arrival of Jesus in the NT which at every turn opposed both religious and governing authority in every way, and in a culture where religious authority ruled that part of the world Jesus could have been considered a rebellion (and was). So it's ironic that anyone would make the claim that the Bible was written to conquer and control when the very contents serve to break those holds.
Jesus actually changed the face of religion and eventually was the key foundation in breaking apart that religious regime. With His message of freedom and love for God I don't see how it could reflect anything other than that. Again, the NT does not fit the narrative of heinous conquering IMO. If anything Jesus was giving power back in the hands of the people not authority and He did that without the use of invoking violence (turn the other cheek).
Everything about its ethics scream obedience and to fear one's master.
Okay but obedience and fear (or reverence) for one's master is not always a bad thing and in many ways can be understood as a good thing. Spirituality is based around self-control and submission because many times we get lost in the limitations and perceptions of the self, so it's good practice to be aware of the fact that there exists a higher transcendent reality involved outside of our own limitations and perspectives of life.
As you know the world is full of wackos lol, and people who lack self-control and stability so these key factors serve a useful purpose.
Take martial arts for example as a form of obedience and respect for one's master, what purpose does that serve? it helps the individual achieve a greater state of being through self control, application and subservience to their teachers and in doing so the student is able to develop themselves into something they previously lacked.
This same premise extends to spirituality and is quite necessary. Now I'm not saying that religious control is always a good thing, not at all it depends on the context of course....I'm just saying obedience and reverence are key principles in achieving a superior state of being and are not a negative quality in relation to God.
Again I'm not necessarily arguing that you are wrong here, but I am pointing out what may be contrary to what you are saying. I too have my own ideas and concepts that fall away from an orthodox interpretation.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oh okay, so you're saying that they may have not even known....assuming what you're saying is true?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you creating your own narratives/interpretations as you feel depicts reality best as you see it, or is this the narrative you believe is presented by the Authors of the scriptures?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
God of OT = Devil = Satan
What do you think then about the story of Job, where both God and Satan are clearly depicted as separate entities, contrasting entities?
"6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They consider Spiritualism to be a science.
I've been trying to get people to see that spirituality is a science for over a decade. Spirituality is based upon observation not wishful thinking, there is a science involved only it's of a different nature. There's an objective reality that exists transcendent of the immediate physical sense perception, one that has a vast experience of variation.
That is why there are so many records from the beginning of the faith.
That's an understatement lol. It's true though, all the records are there for our personal access whenever we are ready to accept it.
I have been attendancing a Spiritualist church
Well it's all part of the reality that spiritism is a fact and obvious reality of creation, it goes with the territory. Spiritism spreads into just about every faction of religious sources, and even non-religious sources like NDE's and endless examples of correlating evidence that supports it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No but I will! I've actually been researching "I Survived Beyond and Back"....it's a great documentary, tons of testimonials and correlating medical facts and doctor eyewitnesses supporting OBE's (NDE's). Thanks, I'll check it out. People would be surprised how much evidence there is that supports the soul existing independent of the physical body. It's not just proposed by countless religious sources but reinforced by many examples of correlating evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok.Your "intelligent" "creator" "god" is totally real in the realest real literally real real way.
First of all, I don't appreciate being treated like I'm one of your dipstick posters you want to interrogate for fun. If you want to ask me a question do it with sincerity and without sarcasm as if you want to really find an answer. And then, if I feel like you're being for real, I'll give you what you are asking for.
What does your "god" want me to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well if you have anything besides sarcasm maybe you could get back in the discussion. Are you on meds Zed? sometimes you're a great guy and the very next moment you're a shyt head, you should get that worked out. The guy in the other topic about your attitudes seems to think it's our fault you guys are pricks, but I don't think so, you seem to just like being one. Let me know when you grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
He's an atheist, I'm using him as an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe you could chime in and tell him he's making atheists look like asses. Calling him your boy was just my attempt at humor.
If he won't listen to guys like me trying to correct him, maybe he will listen to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No I do care. I'm sorry if this topic does not apply to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Your boy FLRW here is making my point very clear. Unfortunately for him, he will never be able to look past other secularists presumptions, he's allowed someone to lead him to believe that believing in God is a product of human weakness, and so all he can do is parrot that baloney in many of the topics here. So where do we go from there? since I know it's not true, at least regarding my own conclusions there's no room for further dialogue. Not to mention, it's quite insulting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Look, I didn't set up this dialogue to further perpetuate hostility, rather the opposite. I'm sure some atheists have good reason to be irritated by theists (which I've already admitted) and vise versa. My main point is that I don't want to be inhibited by presumptions that don't apply to me in a discussion, and while you may believe there's good reason for those presumptions I do not. At least they are not associated with the prospect of whether or not God exists, and should not be used as a means of producing conclusions about that.
In forums like these I'm going to make the assumption that people are here to support their beliefs and they have thought about them using critical thinking, logic and forms of evidence that make sense to their beliefs. That's the best way to ensure that I'm conducive to productivity and intellectual honesty in considering alternative solutions.
If I'm going to come into a forum that's tailored to religious content and assume atheists are less intelligent, that they are the products of atheistic preachers through brainwashing and perhaps they lack critical thinking skills how do you think that is going to reflect on the integrity of my own views? I may have said those things before but honestly they were only in retaliation to show how stupid and worthless these types of assertions are. I'm not directing this solely to you, maybe that's where the disconnect is, this is a general observation and I have to say...if you are not aware of it I'm not sure you're paying much attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I would disagree with you on this one.
I'm more or less looking at the overarching principle involved and it sounds reasonable at face value if we're considering it in relation to the whole of a people, group or society. But I'm sure anything can be twisted to be used as something negative or perceived as negative depending on who we are asking.
The overarching principle is basically:
"Utilitarianism is a theory of morality, which advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm. When directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a whole."
So obviously, if we're going to consider this ideal as something useful or to be applied all the specifics/angles should be considered but to prevent discrimination and condemnation towards people because of a tribe mentality for example, perhaps factions of religions or special groups that wish to impose their discriminations and rules on "outsiders" I think it's useful in protecting the whole of a society.
This means that so far as the end is desired - however we get to that end is justified. An example might be - we need to get Trump out of the white house - so committing mass fraud is justified. Furthermore lying about it is justified. and destroying people and their reputations is justified.
Well this doesn't come across to me as ethical, and serves to undermine the overarching principle of valuing happiness, or preventing harm. Destroying someone's reputation through lies should be prevented by other more specific laws put in place, so this model should be supported by a surrounding body of other governing laws upheld by the justice system. I'll consider what you are saying though, but I'm not saying this model of morality should exist alone without other means of justice.
In any event, I reject that the the God of the Bible would find nothing wrong with that principle
I'm sure, but that wasn't really the objective in this discussion. There's many things people complain/argue about in the Bible that might not support "Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce sadness, or the reverse of happiness" such as the persecution of certain people due to religious ideas....this obviously should be prevented because you might not want Islam for example, using there Holy Book as a means of reaching their agenda or imposing it upon your life and your choices.
So for this discussion I'm not using the Bible as basis for morality, otherwise we would have to allow other religious authority as well. However you brought up some good concerns thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I never said it is wishful thinking because it is indoctrination. I am saying that it is both, independently and separately. It is pretty much understood and accepted that humans are predisposed toward superstitious thinking, pareidolia, and wishful thinking. Religion is merely a product of that. (#1)
And again, this is exactly the kind of crap that causes presumptuous attitudes and in return interrupting productivity. You can't make assumptions like this, impose them on others and walk away feeling like you've been intellectually honest. I'm here to say no sir, try again. If you want to remain intellectually dishonest then you might never get to the truth of a claim. You'll never know that spirituality is based upon observation because you've made the assumption that anything related is the product of wishful thinking and indoctrination. You have to ask me what my motivations and reasons for accepting certain things are, not assert them. Do you understand any of that? or will you just repeat the same nonsense?
That's my question. When you take the universe at face value and accept as true only what is most obvious, that caries with it the implicit assumption that the universe somehow conforms to what is obvious to humans.
You're misunderstanding what I meant here, what is obvious are the results of critical thinking, evidence, logic, commonsense, good reasoning and correlation. I thought I made that clear in the last post. IDK though, lets see...
"When I say that it is obvious, I mean that it is obvious once we apply critical thinking, logic and commonsense that it becomes obvious the universe is a product of a Creator. Now I admit, that's my own interpretation but one that is based on reality."
Nothing you've said here is novel or fresh.
Lol...well considering this is a topic based on the presumptuous attitudes of atheists no, of course there's nothing new or fresh about that, it's all the same garbage that's been displayed in every religious discussion. You'd have to be following my topics and my responses in this forum to see what content I present.
All of these are how and why atheists develop "attitudes" in these kinds of conversations.
Maybe you should follow more discussion in this forum, or anywhere for that matter...it should be very easy to see where the attitude begins. Here, why don't we use this thread as an example of how atheists commonly bring presumptuous attitudes into God related topics.
Post #3
“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"
Post #5
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses," he writes. "The Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends."
It continues: "No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this."
Post #7
"Religious people are less intelligent on average than atheists because faith is an instinct and clever people are better at rising above their instincts"
Post #10
"I would certainly concur that religion is a form of wishful thinking, one that is quite indisputably drilled into many children as a form of indoctrination."
Post #13
"Atheists think that theists are dumb and vice versa....What's new Einstein?"
Now lets pretend for a moment that God (as proposed as the origins of our existence) is not the product of wishful thinking, lack of intelligence, indoctrination, mental illness or whatever BS atheists presume and that God does exist. How do you think these presumptuous attitudes help in honest, thought provoking debate? how will this help between two people trying to solve an inquiry about this subject matter?
Now I could go into any topic here and show you exactly how this occurs but maybe you'll get the point in what I'm trying to say. If God is a reality, then these types of presumptions will only serve to limit the scope of what is possible to the one that doesn't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
And let me know if you have anymore questions about anything mentioned in the OP!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As long as you assume facts can't be obtained within the spiritual arena I guess you'll never know. Let me know if you come up with anymore questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Does it ever bug you to know that the theists on this board almost to a person believe you're going to at best be deleted when you die, at worst you'll be thrown into a pit of fire to be tortured for eternity for believing as you do?
I don't presume to know what others think or believe until I ask them. Honestly even if they thought that it wouldn't surprise me any and I also wouldn't care much. I've been around religious people my entire life of all kinds so I'm very familiar with all their nonsense and judgmental attitudes.
Much of what I share are pretty basic Theistic premises though, nothing too out of the ordinary but I don't limit knowledge to any one book because to me that's not a very bright idea. I'm not against Christianity and in many ways support it so there's no real reason for anyone to make such an assumption. My foundation is Christianity, I've applied all those teaching to myself since I was a kid on my own accord and still do.
Jesus came along and changed the face of religion by preaching truthful ideas that were not commonly accepted during that time. There's no harm in sharing truth that may extend beyond what is normally thought, and not everything is in the Bible.
I'd have to giggle though if I found out there were Theists here that don't have a concept of the soul (or hasn't heard of it). The soul never gets "deleted" that is basic as you can get. If there's one thing I know of for sure without any doubts is that the soul exists independent of the physical body. Everybody can bank on that fact, if you don't believe it you'll see for yourself at some point in the distant future. Too bad I won't be around to hear all the doubters say....."holy shyt! that crazy EtrnlVw dude was right!".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Whatever you want to label it. It's either compatible or not...call it whatever you want. The "God of the Gaps" label doesn't do anything to the fact that God fits in the gaps because it works, not because it's untrue. I like how secular people make up these little labels and and so-called fallacies and post them as if they were some kind of an argument. It's cute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
In the most generic sense, theism (the believe in a deity) is not an absurd or ridiculous proposition.
That is helpful, I'm glad to hear that.
I find specific propositions of various religious to be absurd or ridiculous, on a case-by-case basis.
This makes sense, I can agree with that. I don't think it tarnishes the reality of God existing and so I wouldn't personally put much emphasis on it.
I would certainly concur that religion is a form of wishful thinking, one that is quite indisputably drilled into many children as a form of indoctrination.
It may be drilled into children (or may not be) but that doesn't mean religion is a product of wishful thinking. In many cases, religions are built around observation not wishful thinking. I've been trying to dispel this presumptuous notion. Atheists wouldn't know, but spirituality opposes the natural response of what people "wish" to be the case.
The flaw here is you think it simply comes down to what is more obvious.
That's not a flaw, every man is free to interpret the world how they see fits with reality. This goes the same for your personal interpretation. To me, it's obvious that the universe is a product of intelligence... and indoctrination, wishful thinking and what I want play no role in that assessment. You might assume it does, as long as you understand it's your own speculation.
Clearly creation is the "obvious" assumption because that is what humanity, on the whole, has found "obvious" about the world around us.
No, you leap to conclusions without even attempting to ask. This is part of the problem and why these discussions are so monotonous. The fact that humanity, on the whole, interprets the universe as products of intelligence is wonderful but it has nothing to do with me and my own interpretations. Basically I could care less what humanity thinks.
But as we actually apply critical thinking and make observations of the world
Lol oh here we go....
it seems that - amazingly - the universe does not find itself bound by the limits or wishes of human cognition.
Why would it?
It has become increasingly clear that what is "obvious" to our brains is simply what promotes survival in macroscopic, Earth-like conditions.
When I say that it is obvious, I mean that it is obvious once we apply critical thinking, logic and commonsense that it becomes obvious the universe is a product of a Creator. Now I admit, that's my own interpretation but one that is based on reality.
The revelations of science show us that, outside these narrow constraints the universe is rather bizarre and counter-intuitive. The observations of relativity and quantum mechanics are some of the most non-obvious statements ever to be formulated by man. And yet the most accurate in describing the world around us.
What I find, is that quantum mechanics aligns with my own propositions about creation. And since science is a neutral study there's no need to assume that anything it establishes is a product of materialism or atheism. What science "shows us" is how things work and by what processes, not why such processes occurred in the first place. Science can be interpreted as understanding the works of God, I don't see quantum mechanics or science as anything in contrast to my interpretation of the world.
Atheists assume that scientific studies and the scientific method support materialism and atheism, which is absolute nonsense. They get this silly idea from atheistic preachers who try and use theories of science to undermine religion lol, they think that because they can use science to show how things operate that they can use it to peddle their nonsensical worldviews. Science doesn't make any claims about Gods existence OR nonexistence, that's not its field of study.
So let me get this out of the way now, the scientific method, evolution and scientific studies are compatible with Theism.
You do realize that religion, for the most part, has a history steeped in oppression, persecution, inquisition, and judgement toward those that do not accept it in whole cloth?
I thought I made that pretty clear. This applies to both believers and nonbelievers. So the attitude of atheists towards theists is moot.
Your question makes sense only when considered in a vacuum ignorant of the history of mankind on this planet.
Sure, maybe your reading comprehension needs help? lets read what I wrote again...
"Now to be fair to atheists I am well aware of how you've been treated, at least in the past but theists of all kinds have also been persecuted so that doesn't just apply to atheists. I'm not stupid, I'm well informed of how snot-nosed religious people are prone to condemn unbelievers and anyone that doesn't support their special ideas of the world. I'm sick of that too, but at some point we all need to move past that and be open-minded of each others knowledge. In todays world, it's not so much the case where any of you atheists are being ridiculed or persecuted and actually it seems to be more the case that Theists are ridiculed especially in what seems to be a majority of a secular environment."
It goes both way but in forums like these it seems to go way more towards Theists being treated as stupid or mentally ill. It simply gets in the way of productivity and is uncalled for.
Or perhaps maybe it is the case that I have been debating about religion for more than the median user age on this site and have yet to see new arguments or information.
Oh please son, I've been in this game for more than 15 years and I'm 43 years of age. The information and topics I've been launching are certainly fresh ideas. I know they are because I've been around the block a few hundred times.
The quickness in which I reject the god belief is less an automatic response because of brainwashing and close-mindedness and more an automatic response because I've probably heard it before. Why waste time in addressing already debunked nonsense?
Just because you believe you've debunked a few religious ideas you think that makes your worldview anymore legit? and because you don't find religions convincing that puts a cap on your preconceived materialistic assumptions about the world? if that satisfies your intellect so be it. It's a shame but whatever.
You don't even need religion to put together a theistic interpretation of the universe so you have to do more than debunk ideas of other people. For me, I'm not satisfied with religion (even though there is valuable information available) and I'm certainly not satisfied with accepting materialism or atheism because they are absurd estimations. So I certainly evaluate all the information available and consider what is useful but I put the pieces together for myself, if I thought for one second that flawed religious ideals were the end of consideration I'd be quite disturbed.
I've seen your posts throughout the years, they are typical examples of presumptuous atheistic attitudes and behavior trying to hijack science to support them, it's ludicrous. Your views are not that complicated, there's only two options and your opinion falls on one side. Big deal. There's many realistic ideas within the Theistic spectrum which involves not just the universe, but every aspect of human experience and so to say it's all nonsense is not very thought provoking.
Depends on how you qualify a world view as superior or inferior. Personally I consider superior the worldview that is most in line with how the world actually is.
That goes for you and me both. But to bring in an attitude of superiority in a neutral discussion or debate only serves to undermine being open-minded. And without humility and flexibility there is no room for being open minded, and what's the point if the people who claim they are the "free thinkers" are no longer open minded?
So because theists have been dicks to each other atheists should ignore how theists have been dicks to atheists? No thank you.
Is it possible you missed my point there lol??
Created: