Dtruthspeaker:


surely it is because you can not make or easily repurchase a car or the windscreen but that is not a problem for Mr Toyota as you can already see many of his creations are destroyed during tests and even for entertainment purposes eg movies and stunts.

But for your level let's take a torch that does not work properly or at all, you Certainly Smashed it and Dashed it into a thousand pieces!

Or as reported one footballer did that early this year or late last year, he Smashed his Super car because he was angry with it! Yeah, that's what it means to be a Creator!

a child-ish ,irrational Creator we have then , who thinks these mean jokes are funny.
( The Rona, H.I V , mosquitoes ,germs )
Basically everything is meant to kill us

Religion is really being told about our Ancestors. It can never be a Scam.

TheSourcerer:
need and struggle for survival, from the very first cell .Survival motivates these instinct .

The need for survival exists for no reason.

TheSourcerer:
a child-ish ,irrational Creator we have then , who thinks these mean jokes are funny.
( The Rona, H.I V , mosquitoes ,germs )
Basically everything is meant to kill us

Our Creator did no such thing, He did as you would reasonably do, dispose bad creations Exactly as you disposed and destroyed your toys which annoyed and vexed you!

IMAliyu:

The people you care for, you don't just stop caring for overnight.
Your sense of fairness and justice (if you had one) doesn't stop existing.
Your desire for survival doesn't end either.
And your base personality hardly ever changes.

You are making the error of looking at the hypothetical situation with the situation you know NOW, NOT TAKING INTO COGNISANCE, Those things which must consequently change because of Absence of Authority.

That is what I am bringing to your notice.

I certainly will not be who I am now for the the Settings of the World which affects my responses has changed eg imagine that people it is the behaviours of people to attack each other, I do not think family and all those things will be of value for it is only the surviving living that can have values not a dead one.

IMAliyu:

From what I'm understanding in what you are saying, is for you in the op's scenario, is you would do a complete 180°.

At the bolded: I had not yet read this part when I started answering you and you have used the words of error which I said you had in mind.

No God means, No Laws and No Laws means the Settings of this world that you KNOW NOW, will not be the same!

Religion is a scam no doubt...it comes from the root word meaning mind control. Religions like christianity and islam where created with the sole purpose of social engineering, power and money...

It is just for the poor massess..

sonmvayina:
Religion is a scam no doubt...it comes from the root word meaning mind control. Religions like christianity and islam where created with the sole purpose of social engineering, power and money...

It is just for the poor massess..

You still do not know that so many things in this world have mind controlled you No 1) being your Constitutions, 2) Your Schools 3) your means of livelihood

Which is why the Bible clearly said that the world has deceived all the peoples of the earth.

Dtruthspeaker:


You still do not know that so many things in this world have mind controlled you No 1)being your Constitutions, 2) Your Schools 3) your means of livelihood

But in those, i define the terms...but christianity..nah...

sonmvayina:


But in those, i define the terms...but christianity..nah...

You can find The Truth if you want, which is why I Cut Down Anything and All those things which are not True in Natural Living!

Dtruthspeaker:


You still do not know that so many things in this world have mind controlled you No 1) being your Constitutions, 2) Your Schools 3) your means of livelihood

Which is why the Bible clearly said that the world has deceived all the peoples of the earth.

You remember one of our old nursery school rhyme those times..

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily...life is but a DREAM


This life is a dream, the real life starts when we join our ancestors...(the spirit world)

Wake up Dtruthspeaker..You are the one who has been lead astray..

Dtruthspeaker:


You can find The Truth if you want, which is why I Cut Down Anything and All those things which are not True in Natural Living!

Those things are there for a purpose....discover it...

sonmvayina:


You remember one of our old nursery school rhyme those times..

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily...life is but a DREAM


This life is a dream, the real life starts when we join our ancestors...(the spirit world)

Wake up Dtruthspeaker..You are the one who has been lead astray..

Aha! , first this above, then this below?

sonmvayina:


Those things are there for a purpose....discover it...

Dtruthspeaker:


Aha! , first this above, then this below?

You cant reconsile both?...you are really caught in the matrix..

Blue pill or red pill??

LordReed:


So that excuses him from being moral? Despite claiming to be perfect? Perfect by what standard then because he is not perfect by his own standard.

No, it excuses Him from compulsorily having to follow rules He gave to MAN. This why i reminded you that He is not a man. A lecturer can give students rules in the class. A doctor can give patients rules. A father can give his children rules. You don't put them in the same category and standard as the student, patient or child. Or are they immoral from your perspective?

Image123:


No, it excuses Him from compulsorily having to follow rules He gave to MAN. This why i reminded you that He is not a man. A lecturer can give students rules in the class. A doctor can give patients rules. A father can give his children rules. You don't put them in the same category and standard as the student, patient or child. Or are they immoral from your perspective?

+So by what standard is he perfect?

LordReed:


+So by what standard is he perfect?

You forgot to give your standard. God is perfect by His standard.

Pelecius:

Christianity actually helps make a sane society.

Lol...

Image123:


You forgot to give your standard. God is perfect by His standard.

What is his standard?

LordReed:


What is his standard?

That guy is not so good at defending the Bible let alone defending God.
Furk the Bible!

kingxsamz:

Lol...

Islam is a religion of peace.
Lolzzzzzzz

LordReed:


What is his standard?

You keep "forgetting" to answer my questions. Your answers will help you. Anyway, not to complicate things, lol. God's standard is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Summarily, He's in another class. Perspective.

Image123:


You keep "forgetting" to answer my questions. Your answers will help you. Anyway, not to complicate things, lol. God's standard is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Summarily, He's in another class. Perspective.

So basically anything he does is good and perfect. There is no appeal to his better nature since even while drowning babies and the unborn, he is perfect. Am I getting you right?

LordReed:


So basically anything he does is good and perfect. There is no appeal to his better nature since even while drowning babies and the unborn, he is perfect. Am I getting you right?

Off course.
They will defend God against their children.

Dtruthspeaker:


You are making the error of looking at the hypothetical situation with the situation you know NOW, NOT TAKING INTO COGNISANCE, Those things which must consequently change because of Absence of Authority.

That is what I am bringing to your notice.

Fair enough.

However I was looking at it from an individual level.
On a mass scale, the miscreants among us will find it as a new reason and opportunity to do whatever they want.

Although what I would fear most in this scenario, is less of an anarchy and more of a nihilistic authoritarian regime emerging. Like what happens with Communist countries, an example is China's authoritarian government, that tries to be a god metaphorically. You can not criticize (blaspheme) the government, it constantly monitors you (China's mass surveillance), China's new social credit system reminds me a little to the deed system in Islam however in this case some normal human errors can cost you severely.
A system like that is a system without some degree of faith in people or a God.

I certainly will not be who I am now for the the Settings of the World which affects my responses has changed eg imagine that people it is the behaviours of people to attack each other, I do not think family and all those things will be of value for it is only the surviving living that can have values not a dead one.

The reason I kept mentioning family like a broken record, is because it is connected to our instinct of self preservation and survival.
We reproduce because we are mortal and die, but in a sense your children with your genes and the knowledge you pass on to both your child and others, will still be around. In a way you live on through this. That's why it's valuable and important in survival.

At the bolded: I had not yet read this part when I started answering you and you have used the words of error which I said you had in mind.

No God means, No Laws and No Laws means the Settings of this world that you KNOW NOW, will not be the same!

I think the scenario being posed here, would be that God (as we imagine him) never existed to begin with. So it would mean people were the ones that created those stories, created and passed on those laws, all the way to this point in time and you are only realising this now.
(This doesn't extend to the question of creation)

Another thought. We wouldn't really need legislatures, courts, judges, and police if God was enforcing his laws on us, in this world would we?
(Just to clarify laws here mean, does and don'ts, and not physical laws like eg. Electromagnetism)

LordReed:


I don't think I want to have this conversation with you since you don't want to take correction because I don't know how many times I'll have to point out that there is nothing like atheistic worldview and I certainly do not have an atheistic worldview. If you cannot let go of this your grip on what has pointed out to be wrong then you are not worth having a conversation with.

You can't tell me that there's nothing like atheistic worldview. It's on record that atheist always remove whatever would serve as stumbling block from their belief system to the extent of desperately changing the definition of atheism even when the a priori bias they have towards theism betrays them. Hence it is futile having discussion since as in this case, soft targets are being excluded, just like the example I gave of you making a claim that we arrive here through natural processes (which you must be referring to evolution) but you wouldn't love to describe what started the process in the first place as that is another soft target.
Therefore, I share your last statement (as advised by Dtruthspeaker earlier) that "you are not worth having a conversation"

LordReed:


You wrote Christianity or atheism, are they the only positions on the issue?

Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.

It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to.

You wrote Christianity or atheism, are they the only positions on the issue?
I just checked my statement again and notice that you see to rip it out of context. I maintain that I never implied that Atheism is opposite of Christianity. I used the statement "... whether Christianity or Atheism" to buttress the point that THERE ARE UNIFYING PRESUPPOSITIONS OR AXIOMS THAT BRINGS ALL THE OFFSHOOTS TOGETHER THOUGH THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT "VERSION" OF SUCH SYSTEMS.

Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.
Because there is no better explanation, hence, folks like you tend to shy away from such questions but would REJECT supernatural creation. So which is which? Why rejecting the notion of supernatural creation and at the same time, having nothing to do with same question?

Again, "Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere...", which is which? It does not answer, yet it has to find explanations elsewhere?
Most atheists are the ones who actually trumpet the alleged science and religion controversy which is why I laugh at them for such ignorance for not knowing that modern science (of observation and experimentation) as we know it was founded and flourished with a Christian presupposition. Again, just like the crux of this argument, it was borrowed from another worldview as it is not consistent with a generic atheistic's one. (you may argue with wealth of atheistic literature which tends to dismiss consciousness [since atheism cannot account for it through natural process] by suggesting that our reasoning are results of mere chemical and nuerochemical activities of the brain)

It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to
Again, this is another desperate "evolution" of evolution. How can we talk about evolution when there is nothing in the first place that mutation or natural selection will act on? So I'm not forcing anything here, rather, atheists are removing every soft targets (which is intellectual dishonesty). Biological evolution truly does not talk about how the first life form came to be but it is clearly PART of the alternatives put forward in answering questions that about worldveiws.

So like I said, atheism keep "evolving" by removing soft targets, hence discussion like this is futile since it can be predicted that another presupposition which can't withstand 'blow' may be removed in the future

LordReed:


Maybe you should get them to come do a rap battle with you. LoL!

Lol

budaatum:


I hope you can therefore understand why Lordreed will ask you to go have your argument "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", and not with him.

He has his own worldview you see, but you want to ignore that and strawman him "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", as if there is some agreement of you both having read the same literature.

I hope you can therefore understand why Lordreed will ask you to go have your argument "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", and not with him.
I clearly understand buda but it doesn't make sense to wear an enemy's armour to attack and then claim not to belong to such enemy when attacked, asking the defender to go an attack the main enemy. That's what I'm pointing out

He has his own worldview you see, but you want to ignore that and strawman him "with what the literature from which they largely grow their arguments", as if there is some agreement of you both having read the same literature
I guess my simple analogy explains why I am not attacking straws here.
We don't need to agree to have read from a certain literature when he echoes what the vast majority of such literature says (but removing what appears to be soft targets just as some too have tried to do. He is not the fist person in my encounter anyway)

kingxsamz:

Lol...

Oh! Sammy is here. What is your rebuttal to the statement "Christianity actually makes a sane society"?
I predict you won't refute just like my new friend hellvictor

Image123:


You keep "forgetting" to answer my questions. Your answers will help you. Anyway, not to complicate things, lol. God's standard is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, being Eternal, being Creator, being Judge. Summarily, He's in another class. Perspective.

Welcome Brother
He answered with a red herring already by appealing to morality which has been the crux of my argument with him that according to his belief in no God, he does not have any OBJECTIVE BASIS for morality. That does not mean that atheist cannot be moral, in fact, their morality is a testament of God's consciousness in man

keppler:

Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere and best method known to us is science. This is why many conflate atheism with science.
Because there is no better explanation, hence, folks like you tend to shy away from such questions but would REJECT supernatural creation. So which is which? Why rejecting the notion of supernatural creation and at the same time, having nothing to do with same question?

Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book.

Again, "Atheism doesn't answer the question of how the universe came to be. Atheist have to find explanations elsewhere...", which is which? It does not answer, yet it has to find explanations elsewhere?
Most atheists are the ones who actually trumpet the alleged science and religion controversy which is why I laugh at them for such ignorance for not knowing that modern science (of observation and experimentation) as we know it was founded and flourished with a Christian presupposition. Again, just like the crux of this argument, it was borrowed from another worldview as it is not consistent with a generic atheistic's one. (you may argue with wealth of atheistic literature which tends to dismiss consciousness [since atheism cannot account for it through natural process] by suggesting that our reasoning are results of mere chemical and nuerochemical activities of the brain)

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so.

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity.

It's not about being cornered or not. Evolution does not say anything about origins of life but you want to force it to, similarly atheism says nothing about origin of the universe yet you want to force it to
Again, this is another desperate "evolution" of evolution. How can we talk about evolution when there is nothing in the first place that mutation or natural selection will act on? So I'm not forcing anything here, rather, atheists are removing every soft targets (which is intellectual dishonesty). Biological evolution truly does not talk about how the first life form came to be but it is clearly PART of the alternatives put forward in answering questions that about worldveiws.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up.

So like I said, atheism keep "evolving" by removing soft targets, hence discussion like this is futile since it can be predicted that another presupposition which can't withstand 'blow' may be removed in the future

Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds.

LordReed:


Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book.

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so.

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up.



Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds.

Just demonstrate or provide support for a supernatural creation that is more than words in an ancient book
That's the problem, the "ancient book" is being rejected since it is the sole authority. Like the great G. K. Chersterton said in his debate with atheist Anthony Flew (who later got converted) that if archaeological and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible were to be discarded, the very fact that Jesus came (assuming that you don't reject the historicity of Jesus due to atheistic BIAS) who died and resurrected is enough testimony to the reliability of the "ancient book". So I wouldn't allow you to put me in a position of abandoning Jesus' own testimony for your unfair criteria. There is no valid reason for rejecting is except for the atheistic a priori bias

Since it doesn't answer it the answer has to be somewhere else. It's like saying since agriculture science doesn't teach about gravity, we need physics to do so
That's a fallacy of false analogy and non sequitur. Science is just a tool which can be used by anyone. It is not a worldview like atheism, hence your analogy does not follow

You can also go ahead and demonstrate and provide support for how our consciousness is not merely the result of neurochemical activity
Simple explanation: there is no material thing that has consciousness, hence, the matter in the brain does not produce consciousness (as the brain alone does not have consciousness)
If it were to be, then we can never have absolute truth. In fact, science will not work because there's no way to know that the activities in Newton's brain is the correct one. This implies that we are not responsible for our actions since they are the workings of the reactions of matter in our brain. This discussion will not happen in the first place.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? If you haven't go look it up
Of course, i can't be in the world of worldviews without knowing the strengths and weakness of different camps. Abiogenesis - life from non life; which has been put to death by Louis Pasteur, only to be given attention by the Miller-Urey experiment.
And I maintain that whether biological, chemical or cosmic evolution, these are still parts of the naturalistic explanation that MUST exclude God in answering questions of how we came to be here. Even here on NL, folks will rehash statements such as "I know that we are product of some dead stars". This statement has combined the three evolutions (lol) together. Which is why I laugh when atheists try to remove the difficult parts when arguing for naturalistic explanation for all things (Prof Richard Lewontin said "... for we cannot allow a divine foot".

Unlike your religious dogma, we are very comfortable with change. If tomorrow any of my suppositions can be demonstrated to be false I will glad make a change. At no point have atheists said everything about the question it raises is set in stone, just provide support for your supernatural and your gods, we will change our minds
There are evidence for supernatural and God but the atheistic bias will mostly come in the way. It can't be argued that there was and have been no miraculous events (which is a SPECIAL way god upholds the universe in contrast to the REGULAR way such as laws of nature).
So the statement above clearly demonstrate that matter is not just out there (implying from your rejection of supernatural) but you would not change your mind because of bias which itself is a dogma as against your claim.