₦airaland Forum

Chrisbenogor: I guess my question is if spiritual experiences cannot be transferable from one individual to another how can you guys be so confident of its existence

Chris, its been a long while. How bodi?

In reference to the above, I have to tell you that spiritual experiences are in fact transferred from person to person every second of every day, and this can be substantiated.

thehomer: It looks as though you didn't get my point. My point is this: nuclear energy is energy, chemical energy is energy, mechanical energy is energy etc. Humans classify them in different ways for their own purposes not because they're inherently different but to make it easy for them to work with the concept. So when you say energy is mutable that is like saying energy mutates to energy which is a tautology and a tautological idea like that wouldn't work in your premise.

There is also transformation between matter and energy and vice versa, so your rebuttal cannot stand.

Physical energy is mutable.

This is the problem with mistaking a tree for the forest. I say it is something, you say the something is God.

In reference to that particular line I did not say the something is God. I said it is indubitable that a self existent none material element was the precursor of the universe. And this is the reasoning I deployed, which you are yet to address directly -

I don't expect you to know, but I expect you to deduce from the question the glaring fact (which you have acceded) that the universe arose from something - and so long as we say we don't know what that something is, we can see that for that something to exist, it either (x) is self existent - which again justifies my position on self-existence or (y) arose from nothing - which we have agreed is impossible.

What emerges is that the only logical position is that (x) above is the case: and in that event it cannot be that the material universe or any physical thing that preceded it is self-existent, because such are mutable: (if what preceded the material universe is also matter, then it clearly changed form and as such is mutable) - as such, we are left with the only other logical outcome: a non-material self existent element.

Logic.

This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible.

Now a God needs to have a mind. How do you know that this thing actually has a mind? Can it even have a mind? You need to actually consider the broad picture before you start posting your treatises.

At some indeterminate date in the future, we will consider the question of God having a mind - because we first need to get past God existing at all: to wit: we mus first establish that a self existent immaterial cause preceded the universe.

Have you considered that it may be something as mundane as intellectual curiosity?

Like i said already, this discloses your need. All the things you are curious about disclose a need of one sort or the other.

Wow. Deep Sight now declares by fiat what the inherent need of humans is. Well I can do that too. I declare that all humans have an inherent need of being loved by Santa Claus. It is as impossible not to have that need as it is to not think at all.

Argument from absurdity. Just about as worthwhile as the argument about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So you're in effect saying that when you die, you would have served no purpose. Sorry to hear that.

I am saying that if all creatures cease to exist tomorrow, without any further successive eventuality in terms of life, then the ULTIMATE purpose of all life would have been ultimately meaningless.

0 + 1 represents the coming to be of life

1 - 1 representd the subtraction of said life: i.e: death.

Thus 0 + 1 - 1 = [Give me the answer]!

Such a life is ultimately meaningless.

So this primordial life is God. And God was alive without a universe. Now can you please tell me how God can be alive without a universe and what the purpose of your life is?
Note that merely saying that your life is an "expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE" doesn't help you because bacteria that are alive are also an "expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE". Thus your so called purpose would still be less than pedestrian.

Absurdity. As I said before, we will get to all this when we get past the initial premises, if ever.

Martian: Ideas and thoughts are not physical, but they are the products of a physical entity which is the brain.

Martian, in the red-bolded above, i am pleased to see that you have finally acceded to the fact that somethings exist which are not physical.

This is a major step, and it gives me great pleasure.

Good afternoon.

thehomer: Yes so? Does that mean a star sat down in a garden and made someone from the sand it found lying in the garden?

Please let us not be ridiculous. If an ancient book says we are made of dust and discusses the subject with poetic imagery, well garnished with allegories and the like, that goes to style: it does not take away the fundamental fact that the ancient book was right when it said we were made of dust.

Please understand that the means of expression is very important when reading ancient manuscripts. Understanding was vastly more limited and they could only express as best they could. If a bushman unexposed to civilization today sees an helicopter, he will describe it as a giant dragon fly with spinning wings and a roar like a lion. If it is a helicopter gunship, he will add that the dragonfly spits fire from its nostrils.

The bushman actually would not have told a lie: he is only expressing what he saw according to the limits of his knowledge.

However the skeptic will say that the bushman did not see any such thing and that he must have hallucinated or fantasized, because no such thing exists.

But the truth is that helicopter gunships exist.

Hope you catch my drift.

thehomer: Have you considered that it may be something as mundane as intellectual curiosity?

EXACTLY! That betrays the need for meaning.



Will respond to the rest of your post later.

Martian: anencephaly could be evidence that our concious mind is a function of the Cerebrum.

So what do you think. . .

~ That the cerebellum is consciousness itself or

~ That the cerebellum generates consciousness or

~ That the cerebellum is a consuit pipe for consciousness.

Please take careful time to think on this one before responding, because I am going to ask you when you respond exactly what, why, how and wherefore the cerebellum is.

Ciao.

The only thing said to be "self existent" is god and I don't know of any gods. Eternity is just a conception of endless time or infinite time.....................forever and ever, and ever, and ever

Please stop being evasive. Yes or no answers will suffice.

~ Does Eternity Exist, yes or no.

~ Can eternity be created, yes or no.

Thanks.

Martian: Ideas and thoughts are dependent on our brains.

Excellent! I am so very happy that you said "dependent" on our brains, and not that they ARE our brains.

I still demand a strict and definitive answer from you: yes, ideas and thoughts are dependent on our brains - BUT ARE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS PHYSICAL THINGS?

Answer yes or no please: I have always noticed great hesitation from you on this particular question: as though you know the truth but are hesitant to admit that anything non-material exists.

thehomer: Actually, the theory of evolution counters certain Gods and acts that they were said to have done e.g making man out of sand.

But we are made of star dust. Scientific fact.

Martian: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes the presentation of this condition as follows: "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

What does this suggest to you about the brain and the conscious mind.

lol, what are you yapping about?

When i gave eternity as an example of a self existent thing, you smirk, why?

1. You don't believe that eternity exists at all? Are we not living in eternity? Is everything not existing in eternity one way or the other?

2. If eternity exists, is it something that can be created?

3. If not, then of course it is self-existent.

If that is the case, and you yet deny that, then you must have created eternity.

I do not regard the universe or energy as "self existence" and If if implied that before, then I take it back. I don't know anything that's "self existent" as you define it.

Is eternity self existent?

@ Martian, refer to -

Deep Sight: The logic in there is quite simple to follow, but at the same time it requires careful and hesitant logical reflection. I think you might want to go over it again: especially in light of the lame christian meme you accused me of deploying.

Refer to:

This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible.

And take in context.

Martian: nonmaterial - not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities"

That something is non material does not make it non existent.

Ideas and thoughts are not material (they do not have the properties of matter, do they?) and yet they certainly exist.

And many other things which I could cite.

But what can I say, you are ever the hardened materialist.

Martian: If we are to follow your "logic", everything did come from nothing because "Nothing" is the best definition of a "non material self existent element"..........or maybe ghosts, or fairies with tails lol.

nonmaterial - not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities"

The logic in there is quite simple to follow, but at the same time it requires careful and hesitant logical reflection. I think you might want to go over it again: especially in light of the lame christian meme you accused me of deploying.

Martian: Fairies with tails?! You're trying too hard.

Never heard of puns? come on.

Fairy tails...

^^^^ O, sorry, just checked it out again, that thread was really cool, I was confusing it with this horrible one -

https://www.nairaland.com/686094/gospel-according-joagbaje

aletheia: Nice thread. Me like.

This one sticks in my memory:

How Joagbaje Became God

O disgusting. This was the height of intra-religious persecution and intolerance.

I remember refusing to touch this site for some months after that thread was finished.

Horrible.

Ishilove: "The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

thehomer: No that isn't what the theory of evolutions is supposed to do.

And for this reason, the theory of evolution has no bearing on the origin of life - and thus no relevance to the question of the existence or non-existence of GOD.

thehomer: Your second premise there is faulty. You're referring to "material energies". That is a faulty idea in the way you're using it in your argument. You need to realize that humans classify energy in various ways in order to be better able to work with them not that energy itself is mutable. I think what you mean by mutable there should apply if energy stopped being energy but instead became something else which doesn't happen.

Material energy is indeed mutable to the extent that it changes state and form: ordinary material particles do change to energy and energy transformations are the stuff the universe is virtually made of. That is in the first instance. In the second instance energy does not have to change to something else entirely to be classified as mutable. Mutable simply means something that can change. To the extent that energy undergoes transformation in terms of matter/energy and also is transformed to different kinds of energy, yes, it is mutable.

In cosmology and astronomy the phenomena of stars, nova, supernova, quasars and gamma ray bursts are the universe's highest-output energy transformations of matter. All stellar phenomena (including solar activity) are driven by various kinds of energy transformations. Energy in such transformations is either from gravitational collapse of matter (usually molecular hydrogen) into various classes of astronomical objects (stars, black holes, etc.), or from nuclear fusion (of lighter elements, primarily hydrogen).

Energy transformations in the universe over time are characterized by various kinds of potential energy that has been available since the Big Bang, later being "released" (transformed to more active types of energy such as kinetic or radiant energy), when a triggering mechanism is available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

As such, the second premise stands, because yes, a mutable thing cannot be self existent.

I don't know. I don't even know enough to tell whether or not your questions on it are even valid.

I don't expect you to know, but I expect you to deduce from the question the glaring fact (which you have acceded) that the universe arose from something - and so long as we say we don't know what that something is, we can see that for that something to exist, it either (x) is self existent - which again justifies my position on self-existence or (y) arose from nothing - which we have agreed is impossible.

What emerges is that the only logical position is that (x) above is the case: and in that event it cannot be that the material universe or any physical thing that preceded it is self-existent, because such are mutable: (if what preceded the material universe is also matter, then it clearly changed form and as such is mutable) - as such, we are left with the only other logical outcome: a non-material self existent element.

Logic.

This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible.

Capisce?

Wow. You seem to know so much about me. Now please tell me how you know I have such a need despite the fact that I've told you I don't.

Because for one who has no such need you spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy on these matters.

Secondly, as I said, ALL human beings have an inherent need for cosmic meaningfulness. Even those who claim otherwise still have that need. As a knowing sentient creature, it is as impossible not to have that need as it is not to think at all.

The fact that something is transient or limited doesn't make it meaningless. It is a purpose.

Of course, if it results in anything subsequent to itself, it had a successive purpose. But, as in the case of the atheist's worldview, when it ends with no successive event or further motion, then it ends as ultimately and eventually purposeless.

You should read this in both the micro scale of individual death and the macro scale of universal-extinction/ death.

This is as simple as saying that this equation -

0 + 123456789 - 123456789 = 0

--- Means nothing other than zero.

Its final result and end purpose is zero, notwithstanding that there occurred 123456789 in the equation, and this is the summary of the atheist's purposeless zero life.

So the purpose of the universe is for life to be present. This is a worse than pedestrian purpose that would be served even if the only available life forms were bacteria. And you call this a cosmic purpose for humans? You need to try harder.

I did not say any such thing. I said the expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE. That is not the same as saying that the universe is built for living things - even if it is or not. Rather the universe itself is part of the primordial expansion and expression radiated from the ultimate PRIMORDIAL LIFE that I speak of.

O, and by the way, PRIMORDIAL LIFE is another word for God, as I use it.

thehomer: What evidence do you have of non-physical/material energy?

The existence of non material energies is a logical deduction from the following premises -

1. Material Energies exist

2. Material energies, being mutable cannot be self-existent

3. Being not self-existent, material energies must have come into existence at a point

4. Given that something cannot emerge from nothing, material energies must have emerged from some thing else

5. Given that nothing mutable is its own cause, then material energies must have emerged from non-material elements

But the universe isn't nothing.

The implication of believing it to be finite in the past is that one must concede that it started at a point . . . . from what? Nothing?

And if from something, what, why, wherefore, and how was that something?

Actually, that need for a cosmic purpose isn't inherent in all people.

It is.

e.g I don't have such a need.

You do.

The absence of such a need doesn't mean that I cannot have my own purposes you know.

They would be meaninglessly transient purposes, inherently empty.

Actually, it would also render your life meaningless in the sense that you're using the word. Unless of course you actually know what the cosmic purpose is and for you to do that, you would need to be the God that created the universe.

The cosmic purpose is the natural and living expression and expansion of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE itself.

In addition to the foregoing, I need also say that a purely theological discourse on primordial causality cannot in any vein be compared to the sort of tales in the OP (re: santa claus, flying horses, holy-spirit pregnancy, etc) and secondly that given that science itself bespeaks causality, the atheist who denies same is approaching the greatest fairy tale of all time.

thehomer: Missed this jibe at me earlier. To rectify it, consider my response.

It wasn't a jibe. Not in any way or form whatsoever.

Deep Sight you're back again with your accusations. How is the idea of a self existent universe a fairy tale if the idea of a self existent God is to be tenable?

You missed the flow of the conversation. I was not stating the idea of an eternal universe to be a fairy tale (though I do not believe in such an idea). What happened was -

1. I applauded the OP

2. Martian alleged that the same arguments in the OP used to discredit "religious fairy tales" could equally be used against my ideas of God

3. I asked him how so

4. He indicated that my ideas are also fairy tales and alluded to my concept of "self existent things"

5. I pointed out to him that he cannot call the concept of self-existence - by itself - a fairy tale given that in any event something or the other MUST be self existent - either the precursor of the universe or the universe itself.

6. In so doing I drew his attention to the fact that any person who rejects a self existent God must accept a self existent universe - or some other self existent state of affairs.

7. I mentioned you as an example of such a person.

8. And for this reason I conclude that he cannot deride the mere concept of self-existence as a "fairy tale" - if he does so, then the atheist who uses the same concept is also dealing with a fairy tale.

That's all.

Please can you tell me if you think energy is eternal or not?

All energy is eternal but physical/material energy is not eternal in the past: because it is mutable, and as such not self-existent.

First, you may realize that this isn't what all atheists say neither is it what I say.

Any atheist that accepts that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal in the past is inevitably implying the same thing.

Secondly, you're demonstrating your emotional need for some sort of cosmic purpose . . .

That need is inherent in all men, in mind, in consciousness, and in knowing sentience. Given that nature abhors vacuums, that "need" in itself can only be as integral to man as every other natural instinct that any creature has.

If it turns out that the universe has no cosmic purpose or that its purpose was simply to arrive at 42, would that bother you?

Well that would render your life meaningless, not mine.

plaetton: @Martian: Very interesting perspective. Thank you.



Considering the fact that we know so very little about our physical reality, does it not make a lot more sense to focus all our energies in unravelling the mysteries of physical existence than to obsess our selves with this non-physical seed , essence or life?.
How could we even understand the non-physical if we are totally ignorant of the workings of the physical reality?
A great many humans can neither understand the basic mechanics of the universe nor the primary purpose of life, yet are eager to and constantly dream of living in a yet even more mysterious non-physical reality.
How logical is it for anyone to be promoted to a higher reality or station without first gaining mastery of the present reality or station?
How possible is it to make it into heaven or paradise and live blissfully forever when we cannot achieve peace and tolerance in the tiny spec of time we spend on earth?

Iron sharpeneth iron, and gold is refined in fire.

Pascal's Wager is nonsensical. In fact I will go so far as to say that there is a lot to lose from believing in God when such belief is delivered and practiced in the fashion common with most Religions today

Sometimes it seems to me that you are involved in a race against yourself to outdo yourself with record smashing and awe-inspiring foolishness.

You should know that the people who mention FSM in theistic discourses rank as some of the daftest on the planet, many of whom emerged straight from the sweat off the testicles of a baboon. This is because there is nothing remotely intelligent in comparing theological notions of the cause of the universe to imaginations about rank food monsters. You will agree, a vocation for the most infantile.

Martian: But when you start to explain your deist inclinations,you sound like you just updated those religious fairy tales with contemporary knowledge.

Not so: the mere fact that you reject the existence of a precursor creator does not render it a fantasy. Indeed your rejection, being against the known laws of science, is more in the realm of fairies with tails.

Meant to write Unembodied mind.

You see, obviously I knew this. But I chose to respond the way I did exactly to show that you guys always conflate the brain and the mind. Not that i'm about to get into that one right now with a hardened materialist such as your self. I will only ask you to reflect on whether automatic functions of the brain such as blood circulation or the release of select cells are mental activities of a conscious mind. And if thoughts and ideas are physical matter.

No, you said something about eternity being self existent and some other weird stuff

O, so you created eternity. Interesting.

Energy is said to never be created nor destroyed but can take different forms but you never used that example. If E=MC2 is true, then matter itself could be eternal, since it's only a form of energy. So the universe could as well be "self existent" and this could just be the current form of the "energy that is never created or destroyed".

The point remains that since this is the case, you yourself have accepted that somethings may be self-existent - you thus cannot scoff at the term.

The thread talks about the ridiculous nature of religious fairy tales. You then claimed that some of my beliefs may be seen the same way: and in so doing you mentioned my belief that somethings are self-existent. You cannot do that because you yourself regard the universe and energy as self-existent and possibly eternal. As such, you have no leg on which to stand.

The examples you gave were mind, eternity, infinite time etc. but insisted that matter couldn't be "self existent".

Yes because it is mutable. But I know I may not live to see the day that you grasp this very simple point which I have repeated a gazillion times.

I expect better from you than to quote this ridiculous christian meme.

Don't expect better from me: that is the summary of the foolishness of atheism.

Alright, I think I will take some time this afternoon to build up my case before Idehn returns.

ZUBY77: I will venture into that discussion when i become a spirit. Not now

Too late son. You ARE a spirit already.

plaetton: The word spirituality is probably one of the most ambigous and misused words.

Regrettably true. Whenever I ask my siblings this or that question about the judeo-christian myths they simply respond: "Its spiritual". I think that is a serious mis-use of the word.

What is spirituality

The core essence of what we are: the seed non-physical being.

and spiritual life?

The life of that part of our being that is the seed non physical being - the evolution of that seed into a celestially conscious self - a mirror of God

Does our obsession with spirituality make any sense or have any value?

What else would make sense? Bare rocks and atoms?

Damn! My Queen! Not you too!

You rock just the way you've always done. No need for collabs or raps!

OlaAjia: Well, thanks

Because religion is in itself irrational, except when it's your religion that's in question. This is brought about by years of indoctrination, perhaps, and not just any kind of indoctrination, but one that promotes fear as the raison d'etre for belief. I think the fear of eternal damnation forces people to subconsciously create a defense mechanism for their professed faiths, however irrational, in the face of reason. This is unfortunate because the foundation of any progress has always come from the 'whys', 'whats', 'hows', 'ifs' and their variants. People who are upright must be willing to subject everything they hold sacrosanct to question, otherwise, they are merely holding on to dogmas.

Beautiful, thanks. Especially the last sentence.

Have you subjected the whole of your Islamic faith to exhaustive questioning?

Martian: Here's where it's from.
http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

Thanks. It's a great write-up. I already sent it to my siblings. They replied glumly saying "whatever works for each person. . ."

I asked if delusions ever "work" for anybody.

They said no, and refused to respond further.

EDIT: However, by way of note, I should point out that delusions actually sometimes work well for some people (like the placebo effect).

I'm surprised you like this argument because it can be used against you by your pentecostal siblings.

How so. I am not religious. I don't think that being of a Deist inclination is the same thing as subscribing to religious fairy tales.

If you call theirs nonsense, they can use the same eact format to call your beliefs about god nonsense......

They would have to rationally show how so: with logical points, as the OP did here.

I'm talking about unembodied brains

I have never used the phrase "unembodied brain" in my entire life.

and self existing things.

But there are self-existing things -

1. You once asked me for examples, i obliged and you went mum.

2. You must recognise that one way or the other, you cannot escape somethings being self-existent: You are surely aware that denying the existence of a precursor self-existent God, only leads to accepting a self-existent universe. So either way, one thing or the other must be self existent. As such, you cannot refer to the concept of self-existence as a fairy tale: for then, surely, the atheist who believes in a self-existent universe, such as thehomer, thereby has a fairytale as well.

Chew on this carefully, and be more careful next time you seek to mock a concept.

Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?

It should occur to you that the atheistic notion that nothing arose from nothing and by nothing and for no purpose spawned the universe, is far more outlandish than the worst religious fairy tales.

OlaAjia: If it is indeed, as you put it @Pastor AIO, then I am afraid that there is little or no hope for this our beloved country. I say this because religion plays such a massive role in this country, that it is the only thing that has the potential of being exploited to destroy (or even fix) the country.
If there isn't any hope of making sense of religion, that is, if people cannot come to accept that religion cannot be, and should therefore not be rationalised (logically), then they might be prepared to go to any extent on behalf of their respective religions; including the rationalisation of mass murder, genocides and other immoral acts. This probably explains the self-destructive nature of the Boko-Harams as well as the professed pacifists unfortunately!

More importantly, if we continue to wallow in this voluntary ignorance that makes people believe that just by virtue of being a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu, they are better off, then we shall never be able to attain true development. What we will have instead is a largely docile population that would only cheer a National Assembly that sanctimoniously prioritises the outlawing of homosexuality over the strengthening of laws that would effectively deal with corruption, child abuses, oil bunkering, humanright abuses by security forces, essential emergency service responses, and the list goes on.

Finally, I think this is very telling on our willingness (or lack of), despite our proven individual intelligence, to engage with ideas as opposed to personalities. In other words, we find it easy to dismiss people's arguments just because of what (or who) they are associated with, and not because the argument is necessarily false.

I find your truth a very bitter pill to swallow and I am confused as to the way forward. Maybe you can advise me?

Ola Aija, you come across as both very decent and also level headed.

I would be interested in your specific take on this portion of the OP -

Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?

Please, thanks.

logicboy01: PastorAIO, I must apologise for the first impression and meeting I had with you. I was a bit arrogant and thought that you were probably one of those fraudulent preachers here on Nairaland. I have however, learnt a great deal from your posts. Thank you very much.

Nice! I hate to say this, but I TOLD YOU SO!

cyrexx: Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:
• There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
• He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
• During the year, he and the elves build toys.
• Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
• He puts the sack in his sleigh.
• He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
• He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
• He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
• He leaves toys for the children of the household.
• He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
• He does this all around the world in one night.
• Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.
This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas.


But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.
What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly

Now let me show you another example...


Another example
Imagine that I tell you this story:
• A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
• A very bright flash of light appeared.
• A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
• Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
• The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
• The man ran home to his wife.
• While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
• At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
• Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
• Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
• The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
• The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.



What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.


An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, [size=13pt]Muslims can see that Christians are delusional, and Christians can see that Muslims are delusional. While atheists can see that both of them are delusional[/size]



One final example
Now let me tell you one final story:
• God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
• Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
• God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.
• In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.
• As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
• This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.
• But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
• His body was placed in a tomb.
• But three days later, the tomb was empty.
• And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
• Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.
• Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
• This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.
• The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.



This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.


Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is that the Christian story is completely imaginary.



How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on.


People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:
1. The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks

2. Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today.

3. Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered


4. The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is full of contradictions

5. And so on.


In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other two examples we have examined.


Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak.


Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?


Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:


No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?


For example:
• Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.
• Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.
• Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.


Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others.

I JUST LOOOOOVE THIS WRITE-UP!

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ON POINT!

AND FABULOUSLY DELIVERED.

OYA, NA TO RUN GO USE AM CHASE MY PENTECOSTAL SIBLINGS.

Cyrex, did you write it yourself or is it culled?