PoliteActivist:


To Atheists:
Yours is even worse. A religionist can say they had a personal encounter with God. You can't say you heard from God that he doesn't exist! They'll also point out to you that we humans know almost nothing about the true nature of existence. That we are even worse than Einstein's little child in a library - and are therefore in no position to be saying anything doesn't exist, talkless of God!
They'll also point to all the countless miracles through the ages, and all the testimonies - so they are ALL lies, totally made up? They'll also point to the community and ritual available in religion that you can't find in atheism. Also the morality - maybe your potential robber was converted on his way to rob you and is instead in church! They'll also point to the supernatural companionship and placebo effect that comes with faith, not possible with atheism.

I'm curious, this "personal encounter" you're alluding to here, can it be verifiable by anyone else? Because, you see, subjective experiences are a dime a dozen in human history. From alien abductions to near-death visions, the brain is a marvelous storyteller, often weaving narratives based on emotions and cultural influences. Just because someone feels something deeply doesn't make it objectively true, especially when it aligns perfectly with their pre-existing beliefs. Given the vastness of our universe, we obviously don't have all the answers, yet. But here's the thing: claiming vastness doesn't equate to proving the existence of something specific, like, say, a bearded sky wizard. It's like arguing a teapot orbits the sun just because we haven't explored every square inch of space. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence, my friend.

As for miracles? Let's be honest, the majority of them often have very earthly explanations, from misdiagnosis reversals to psychological phenomena. And testimonies? Confirmation bias is a powerful force, leading people to interpret events in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. Plus, let's not forget the countless testimonies throughout history of Zeus, Thor, and a plethora of other deities – were they all true too? You also mentioned community and purpose. Those things can be found in countless ways beyond religion! Sports teams, book clubs, volunteering etc. Oh, and synchronized chanting and burning incense haven't exactly solved world hunger yet. Morality predates religion by millennia, evolving from empathy and social cooperation. And let's not forget the countless atrocities committed in the name of faith throughout history. As for the robber, his conversion might be genuine, but attributing it solely to religion ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence individual choices. Since I've been there before, I can understand and relate to the appeal of seeking solace and comfort. But attributing it solely to faith ignores the power of human connection, self-reflection, and critical thinking. Plus, relying solely on placebos for well-being is a risky proposition.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe the claims presented here are inherently true. They rely on subjective experiences, logical fallacies, and selective interpretations of evidence. As an atheist, I find wonder and meaning in the vastness of the universe we can explore, guided by reason, curiosity, and a 10kg bag of salt. 😉

PoliteActivist:


To both:
As you can see from videos on hypnosis, we could all be under some sort of cosmic hypnosis or mind control and not know it - we would swear we are acting out of free will. But only ALMOST all of us would be fooled. The best geniuses amongst us would somehow be able to figure out we are under some sort of mind control - which they did! Einstein figured out that freewill is an illusion; while our other geniuses say we are very likely in some sort of a simulation!

https://youtube.com/shorts/WLM9roC5lJg?si=LE2K2klgbGCR8xPn

https://youtube.com/shorts/1W1-KBRY0e8?si=JOGIxtEj-gQpeNw_

https://youtube.com/shorts/ed_Nl_MimYY?si=412kQUnA43FEBt3J

Comparing our complex consciousness to a carnival magician's parlor trick is a bold move. Unless this cosmic hypnotist is leaving the latest iPhone in my handbag and making me forget my high school crush, I'm not buying it. And if the "best geniuses" already figured it out, shouldn't everyone else have access to their secret decoder ring?

I'm not inclined to agree with your claims about Einstein. He did grapple with determinism, but is it absolutely the same as dealing with the "free will illusion"? And even if our choices are influenced by factors beyond our immediate control, does that make them any less meaningful? We still experience the world, make decisions, and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards). It's like saying a river doesn't choose its course because gravity influences it. As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.

JessicaRabbit:


I'm curious, this "personal encounter" you're alluding to here, can it be verifiable by anyone else? Because, you see, subjective experiences are a dime a dozen in human history. From alien abductions to near-death visions, the brain is a marvelous storyteller, often weaving narratives based on emotions and cultural influences. Just because someone feels something deeply doesn't make it objectively true, especially when it aligns perfectly with their pre-existing beliefs. Given the vastness of our universe, we obviously don't have all the answers, yet. But here's the thing: claiming vastness doesn't equate to proving the existence of something specific, like, say, a bearded sky wizard. It's like arguing a teapot orbits the sun just because we haven't explored every square inch of space. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence, my friend.

As for miracles? Let's be honest, the majority of them often have very earthly explanations, from misdiagnosis reversals to psychological phenomena. And testimonies? Confirmation bias is a powerful force, leading people to interpret events in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. Plus, let's not forget the countless testimonies throughout history of Zeus, Thor, and a plethora of other deities – were they all true too? You also mentioned community and purpose. Those things can be found in countless ways beyond religion! Sports teams, book clubs, volunteering etc. Oh, and synchronized chanting and burning incense haven't exactly solved world hunger yet. Morality predates religion by millennia, evolving from empathy and social cooperation. And let's not forget the countless atrocities committed in the name of faith throughout history. As for the robber, his conversion might be genuine, but attributing it solely to religion ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence individual choices. Since I've been there before, I can understand and relate to the appeal of seeking solace and comfort. But attributing it solely to faith ignores the power of human connection, self-reflection, and critical thinking. Plus, relying solely on placebos for well-being is a risky proposition.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe the claims presented here are inherently true. They rely on subjective experiences, logical fallacies, and selective interpretations of evidence. As an atheist, I find wonder and meaning in the vastness of the universe we can explore, guided by reason, curiosity, and a 10kg bag of salt. 😉

Thanks for your erudite and well-thought out response.
Well, since we don't know the true nature of existence, everything we know is by preponderance of circumstantial evidence (see last Thursday theory below). The only reason we believe lots of things is NOT because we have first-hand knowledge, but because a bunch of people (call them scientists if you wish) say it is so. So if a bunch of people say they have encountered a tea pot orbiting the sun, you don’t start your doubting of a bunch of people there, you should start by doubting those first bunch of people ("scientists" that told you everything you believe.
Like I said, atheists can never say they encountered God who told them he does not exist. But bunch of religionists have had personal encounters with God in various ways that confirmed to them that God exists and is anthropomorphical. If you think they could have been hallucinating, well, so could those "scientists" that told you everything you believe. If you doubt it, see Lastthursdayism below

JessicaRabbit:


Comparing our complex consciousness to a carnival magician's parlor trick is a bold move. Unless this cosmic hypnotist is leaving the latest iPhone in my handbag and making me forget my high school crush, I'm not buying it. And if the "best geniuses" already figured it out, shouldn't everyone else have access to their secret decoder ring?

I'm not inclined to agree with your claims about Einstein. He did grapple with determinism, but is it absolutely the same as dealing with the "free will illusion"? And even if our choices are influenced by factors beyond our immediate control, does that make them any less meaningful? We still experience the world, make decisions, and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards). It's like saying a river doesn't choose its course because gravity influences it. As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.

Well, your "complex consciousness" are only complex to you. See these shorts videos below, if a mere human can take control of another person and the person not even know they are under control, how much more a cosmic being. Even in the Bible God said he hardened Pharoah's heart. Likewise you may think it is happenstance you "fell in love" when in reality some being manipulated your heart to do exactly that.
As for Einstein, if he could figure out things about reality that we still don't understand, just sitting in his study, we better listen if he comes out with position that freewill is an illusion!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ON_Q5RXr44?si=hRX88mOx-5WJD2NO

https://youtube.com/shorts/LyQ8krZpCtw?si=B0vwypCh_eShg0pR

JessicaRabbit:

As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.

Oh the evidence we are in some sort of a simulation abound. Besides glitches in the matrix everywhere, the fact that the speed of light can never be exceeded no matter the speed of the light source, is a great tell tale sign of simulation to any computer game designer. I'll post an article on it that I came accross.
Of course if this is a simulation, this all can't be happenstance per atheists, nor could it be according to biblical creation story

PoliteActivist:


We don't know the ultimate nature of vacuum energy, but whatever it is, we know it is possible it has always been there - especially since it is the energy in "nothing"!

Bring scientific evidence that states vacuum energy exist in nothing.
because principles quantum mechanics disagree with U. Vacuum energy doesn't exist in a real empty space.

SIRTee15:


Bring scientific evidence that states vacuum energy exist in nothing.
because principles quantum mechanics disagree with U. Vacuum energy doesn't exist in a real empty space.

There is no such thing as "empty space", as you ought know. Seemingly empty space is full of activity. But even beyond space, nothingness still does not exist and cannot exist, hence you can't imagine it. Just as time will always exist - there'd always be now and here!

PoliteActivist:


Thanks for your erudite and well-thought out response.
Well, since we don't know the true nature of existence, everything we know is by preponderance of circumstantial evidence (see last Thursday theory below). The only reason we believe lots of things is NOT because we have first-hand knowledge, but because a bunch of people (call them scientists if you wish) say it is so. So if a bunch of people say they have encountered a tea pot orbiting the sun, you don’t start your doubting of a bunch of people there, you should start by doubting those first bunch of people ("scientists" that told you everything you believe.
Like I said, atheists can never say they encountered God who told them he does not exist. But bunch of religionists have had personal encounters with God in various ways that confirmed to them that God exists and is anthropomorphical. If you think they could have been hallucinating, well, so could those "scientists" that told you everything you believe. If you doubt it, see Lastthursdayism below

There's a lot of misconceptions you're having here. I'll start by pointing out the fact that equating the vast body of scientific evidence, meticulously gathered and tested through rigorous methodologies, with the "Last Thursdayism" thought experiment is a flawed comparison. One stands on a foundation of observation, experiment, and peer-review, the other on a whimsical "what if." Also, I don't think I can accept your flippant dismissal of the expertise of scientists as merely a matter of numbers. Expertise is not a popularity contest. It's built on years of dedicated study, rigorous training, and the ability to critically analyze evidence. To suggest that a random "bunch of people" claiming teapots in the sun holds equal weight to the collective knowledge of the scientific community is, frankly, absurd. Another thing I find absurd is your claim that religious experiences hold more weight than scientific evidence. Personal experiences, even if sincere, are subjective and prone to bias. They can be influenced by cultural expectations, emotions, and even neurological quirks. Science, on the other hand, strives for objectivity, constantly questioning and refining its findings through open debate and experimentation. You suggest scientists are just as prone to hallucination as those claiming religious experiences. This is a dangerous generalization, ignoring the rigorous protocols and peer review that safeguard scientific inquiry. To suggest that established scientific principles are mere hallucinations is not only disrespectful but demonstrably untrue.

I'm familiar with the "Last Thursdayism" thought experiment, but I'm not sure why you have presented it here because it doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion. That is a red herring fallacy, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, it doesn't actually disprove the existence of the past. It merely highlights the limitations of our knowledge, something scientists readily acknowledge. But it doesn't provide any evidence for your specific claims, like a teapot orbiting the sun or, for that matter, an anthropomorphic deity.

PoliteActivist:


Well, your "complex consciousness" are only complex to you. See these shorts videos below, if a mere human can take control of another person and the person not even know they are under control, how much more a cosmic being. Even in the Bible God said he hardened Pharoah's heart. Likewise you may think it is happenstance you "fell in love" when in reality some being manipulated your heart to do exactly that.
As for Einstein, if he could figure out things about reality that we still don't understand, just sitting in his study, we better listen if he comes out with position that freewill is an illusion!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ON_Q5RXr44?si=hRX88mOx-5WJD2NO

https://youtube.com/shorts/LyQ8krZpCtw?si=B0vwypCh_eShg0pR

I'm not sure you fully realize the absurdity of comparing a product of billions of years of evolution, to a magic trick. Neuroscience isn't some magician's smoke and mirrors; it's a complex dance of neurotransmitters, electrical impulses, and a lifetime of experiences shaping our perceptions. And please, with all due respect, spare me the Pharaoh's heart nonsense. The Bible is a collection of stories, not a physics textbook. If you want to talk evidence, stick to the realm of science, not ancient mythology.

Einstein was a brilliant mind, no doubt, but even geniuses are susceptible to flawed thinking. To claim that because he pondered determinism, everyone else should bow down to his musings is intellectually arrogant. The scientific method speaks for itself -- it is not based on blind acceptance of authority figures. And just because he grappled with free will doesn't mean he definitively disproved it. It's a complex philosophical question, not a binary switch. Look at you demanding evidence, yet throw around baseless claims about "cosmic beings" manipulating our hearts. The burden of proof lies with the one making extraordinary claims, not the skeptic asking for evidence. And even if we were in a simulation, so what? It wouldn't change the reality of our subjective experience. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "reality is just turtles all the way down, but those turtles are still pretty damn real."

As for the YouTube shorts, I've seen them, and I'm far from impressed. We can't tell for certain, but I'd wager they're more likely demonstrations of well-known psychological principles, cleverly edited to appear more mysterious than they are. If you want to impress me, you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, not cherry-picked internet clips. I feel I should also remind you -- because it seems you're a having a very fundamental misunderstanding here: Atheism isn't about blind rejection of everything unseen. It's about demanding evidence before accepting extraordinary claims! It's about using reason and critical thinking to navigate the complexities of the universe. So, before you try to control my nonexistent strings or manipulate my heart, you should try backing up your assertions with actual evidence and sound logic -- as is characteristic of any genuine intellectual exchange. Otherwise, you'll just be lost in a self-constructed reality of youtube shorts and ancient fairytales.

PoliteActivist:

You are conflating two types of faith - faith needed to achieve and faith needed to believe. It took faith for a contemporary of Lord Jesus to believe he was the Son of God, though they could see clearly he was a carpenter with neither money nor high connections.

You're lying to your own soul!
The word BELIEVE connotes TRUST and before you can trust someone you need a measure of understanding about the person in question.
As a Nigerian who has never heard of Israel or whatever their God has said or done Jesus has no business with me but to an Israelite who has heard all the things the God of his ancestors has done in the past and all the promises this God has made it will definitely makes no sense to meet Jesus in person and disbelief that he is the promised Christ.

So how does FAITH come into the picture?
Is it simply by saying "i believe"?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
It's by supporting whatever the Christ says so that by the end of the day you will be counted as one of those who worked with the Christ in achieving the purpose for which God sent His Son. John 3:16
If Jesus issues an order and you failed to act in line with his orders definitely you never had faith in him as God's Son. Matthew 7:21-23
So faith on the part of the faithful still means WORKING with what you understood though others may not see the clear picture of what you envisaged! Hebrews 11:1

PoliteActivist:


Bottom line, if one basic element can be self-existing, so can another. No matter how you slice and dice the language. Quantum particles appear out of " nothing" all the time, then disappear

to appear requires a point/not nothing

that u are yet to determine xyz about the point never means it doesnt exist

The point at which they appear has to exist b4 they appear

PoliteActivist:


Oh the evidence we are in some sort of a simulation abound. Besides glitches in the matrix everywhere, the fact that the speed of light can never be exceeded no matter the speed of the light source, is a great tell tale sign of simulation to any computer game designer. I'll post an article on it that I came accross.
Of course if this is a simulation, this all can't be happenstance per atheists, nor could it be according to biblical creation story

Let's address the "glitches" first.

Attributing random events to a simulated reality is a classic case of confirmation bias. You see a pattern where none exists, ignoring the vast majority of unremarkable spoon-bending that happens, you know, all the time. As for the speed of light, that's not a glitch, it's a fundamental law of physics, beautifully explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. It has nothing to do with video game limitations and everything to do with the fabric of spacetime itself. Just because we can't outrun a cosmic speed limit doesn't mean we're trapped in a computer program. You're also presenting a false dichotomy: either everything is a simulation or it's pure happenstance. Evolution begs to differ with this myopic distinction. It gives plausible explanations for the complexity of life without invoking invisible programmers or divine interventions. No magic required, just billions of years of natural selection tinkering away.

Finally, if you don't mind, let's keep this a science vs. faith conversation. Bringing in religious creation stories muddies the water and frankly, belongs in a different debate altogether. Thanks.

JessicaRabbit:


I'm not sure you fully realize the absurdity of comparing a product of billions of years of evolution, to a magic trick. Neuroscience isn't some magician's smoke and mirrors; it's a complex dance of neurotransmitters, electrical impulses, and a lifetime of experiences shaping our perceptions. And please, with all due respect, spare me the Pharaoh's heart nonsense. The Bible is a collection of stories, not a physics textbook. If you want to talk evidence, stick to the realm of science, not ancient mythology.

Einstein was a brilliant mind, no doubt, but even geniuses are susceptible to flawed thinking. To claim that because he pondered determinism, everyone else should bow down to his musings is intellectually arrogant. The scientific method speaks for itself -- it is not based on blind acceptance of authority figures. And just because he grappled with free will doesn't mean he definitively disproved it. It's a complex philosophical question, not a binary switch. Look at you demanding evidence, yet throw around baseless claims about "cosmic beings" manipulating our hearts. The burden of proof lies with the one making extraordinary claims, not the skeptic asking for evidence. And even if we were in a simulation, so what? It wouldn't change the reality of our subjective experience. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "reality is just turtles all the way down, but those turtles are still pretty damn real."

As for the YouTube shorts, I've seen them, and I'm far from impressed. We can't tell for certain, but I'd wager they're more likely demonstrations of well-known psychological principles, cleverly edited to appear more mysterious than they are. If you want to impress me, you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, not cherry-picked internet clips. I feel I should also remind you -- because it seems you're a having a very fundamental misunderstanding here: Atheism isn't about blind rejection of everything unseen. It's about demanding evidence before accepting extraordinary claims! It's about using reason and critical thinking to navigate the complexities of the universe. So, before you try to control my nonexistent strings or manipulate my heart, you should try backing up your assertions with actual evidence and sound logic -- as is characteristic of any genuine intellectual exchange. Otherwise, you'll just be lost in a self-constructed reality of youtube shorts and ancient fairytales.

Can u help me with 1k?

Am so worried

Thats why

PoliteActivist:


There is no such thing as "empty space", as you ought know. Seemingly empty space is full of activity. But even beyond space, nothingness still does not exist and cannot exist, hence you can't imagine it. Just as time will always exist - there'd always be now and here!

I never said nothingness exist, U insinuated it and I became curious.
Time, space, matter and energy all exist within a physical reality where emptiness cannot exist.

However, U cannot use above to define God or look for him because he exist outside the physical reality. That's the stand of theist.
He's the intelligent design that created the physical reality and properties.
However in our own physical reality; nothing cannot exist, and something cannot be made out of nothing.


Regarding time always existing, U may want to read more about multiverse and other universe that exist.

In many cosmological theories, including some versions of multiverse theories, it's postulated that other universes may have different physical constants, laws of physics, and even dimensions compared to our own universe.

In some theoretical frameworks, it's conceivable that alternative universes could have entirely different forms of existence, with different fundamental properties governing their structure and behavior.

SIRTee15:


I never said nothingness exist, U insinuated it and I became curious.
Time, space, matter and energy all exist within a physical reality where emptiness cannot exist.

However, U cannot use above to define God or look for him because he exist outside the physical reality. That's the stand of theist.
He's the intelligent design that created the physical reality and properties.
However in our own physical reality; nothing cannot exist, and something cannot be made out of nothing.


Regarding time always existing, U may want to read more about multiverse and other universe that exist.

In many cosmological theories, including some versions of multiverse theories, it's postulated that other universes may have different physical constants, laws of physics, and even dimensions compared to our own universe.

In some theoretical frameworks, it's conceivable that alternative universes could have entirely different forms of existence, with different fundamental properties governing their structure and behavior.

Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.

You did not mention the following:

1) Why the near-nothing that gave rise to the universe couldn't have always existed
2) The nature of God besides existing outside our reality
3) Why God would suddenly start creating man and the universe 13.8 billion years ago (or 6000 years ago as the case may be)
4) If you believe the 13.8 billion years, why God would take that circuitous route instead of having it be as in the Bible.
5) If our earth were shrunk to the size of a mustard seed (see below) our relatively small galaxy would have a diameter of about from here to mars!
Yet there are 2 trillion galaxis in the observable universe! Which might as well be infinity. Why is earth so microscopic and almost non-exitent compared to what we can observe, talkless of what we can't?

Time as in NOW will always exist and has always existed, just like HERE!

DeepSight, HellVictorinho6, FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022
Seun, HopefulLandlord, LordReed, Jaephoenix
Knownunknown, TheSourcerer. Busybrain2233
1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack, Botragelad, Fourthpredator, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn
SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke
EnemyofGod2, kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001 SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist
FRANCISTOWN, JessicaRabbit, Aemmyjah

MaxInDHouse:


You're lying to your own soul!
The word BELIEVE connotes TRUST and before you can trust someone you need a measure of understanding about the person in question.
As a Nigerian who has never heard of Israel or whatever their God has said or done Jesus has no business with me but to an Israelite who has heard all the things the God of his ancestors has done in the past and all the promises this God has made it will definitely makes no sense to meet Jesus in person and disbelief that he is the promised Christ.

So how does FAITH come into the picture?
Is it simply by saying "i believe"?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
It's by supporting whatever the Christ says so that by the end of the day you will be counted as one of those who worked with the Christ in achieving the purpose for which God sent His Son. John 3:16
If Jesus issues an order and you failed to act in line with his orders definitely you never had faith in him as God's Son. Matthew 7:21-23
So faith on the part of the faithful still means WORKING with what you understood though others may not see the clear picture of what you envisaged! Hebrews 11:1

Your quarrel is with the dictionary. See definition of faith below. Unless you invent your own language

PoliteActivist:

Your quarrel is with the dictionary. See definition of faith below. Unless you invent your own language

So in what way does Paul's definition differ from what your dictionary says? Hebrews 11:1


Complete trust in someone will make you act on the instructions given by such a person and complete trust in something will make you work towards achieving it therefore FAITH has nothing to do with what happened in the past as you were trying to relate it to how creation began rather it's about your own part in supporting who or what you completely trust!

isan:

Pure faith is when a pastor tell his followers he he drank tea with God and they all believed him .... I personally think it's just delusional

My guy that is not faith but self deceit!

Note that the one and only thing this man asks his audience to do is to pay for the way he has been entertaining them with his false stories {2Timothy 4:3-4} so both the man and his friends (followers) are deceiving themselves {2Timothy 3:13} he can never ever instruct them to do anything that will benefit either themselves or the society at large. WHY? Because both himself and his friends (followers) have nothing to do with FAITH which is the assured expectation of things hoped for the evident demonstration of reality even though it has not been seen! Hebrews 11:1
They are all idolaters worshiping Mammon the god of riches {Matthew 6:24} so each of them will do what makes no sense and can't be explained as long as they're interested in gaining riches through their illusion.
So that's how the love of material riches blinds people they have no faith in the true God who teaches us how to benefit both ourselves and our neighbours! 2Timothy 3:1-5

PoliteActivist:

You are conflating two types of faith - faith needed to achieve and faith needed to believe. It took faith for a contemporary of Lord Jesus to believe he was the Son of God, though they could see clearly he was a carpenter with neither money nor high connections.

Aemmyjah:

You're the atheists
Cunningly trying to create this thread
Atheists have nothing meaningful to teach
Just doubt nd confusion to enforce on others or subtly try to make them to adopt
Faith is not, was not and will never be illogical
Atheism is the definition of illogism

With the highlighted above my job is done on his thread!

At least he could refer to Jesus as "Lord" so if he wants to know what faith in Jesus means all he needs to do is ask for a free home Bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses at least he has noticed what FAITH means that it's not just laying claims but acting on what you completely trust!

MaxInDHouse:


So in what way does Paul's definition differ from what your dictionary says? Hebrews 11:1


Complete trust in someone will make you act on the instructions given by such a person and complete trust in something will make you work towards achieving it therefore FAITH has nothing to do with what happened in the past as you were trying to relate it to how creation began rather it's about your own part in supporting who or what you completely trust!

Same St. Paul also explicitly says that salvation is by grace not works "so no one can boast". But this is not about that. I don't know why you fail to see there are two types of faith: 1) As defined in the dictionary: complete trust or confidence in someone or something; strong belief in doctrines of a religion. (Has nothing to do with anything happening or not happening)
2) As enunciated by St. Paul in Hebrew 11 - complete certainty that what you hope for will happen. (Has nothing to do with trust in someone or belief in religion)

HellVictorinho6:


to appear requires a point/not nothing

that u are yet to determine xyz about the point never means it doesnt exist

The point at which they appear has to exist b4 they appear

That's why "nothing" is in quotes. Nothingness cannot exist

HellVictorinho6:


Can u help me with 1k?

Am so worried

Thats why

Send your aza.

Maynthemayn:

Send your aza.

9163989689

Opay

PoliteActivist:

Same St. Paul also explicitly says that salvation is by grace not works "so no one can boast". But this is not about that. I don't know why you fail to see there are two types of faith: 1) As defined in the dictionary: complete trust or confidence in someone or something; strong belief in doctrines of a religion. (Has nothing to do with anything happening or not happening)
2) As enunciated by St. Paul in Hebrew 11 - complete certainty that what you hope for will happen. (Has nothing to do with trust in someone or belief in religion)

Chai, see spiritual blindness o!

So what you hoped for will happen but how is that possible without those who will PARTICIPATE in achieving it?
Someone (Jesus) will teach some people in the true religion how to work towards what they're hoping for.
Ọmọ that's what FAITH means!

As for faith that's not by works Paul explained the type of WORKS he's talking about that it's not by practicing what the mosaic law teaches rather it's by acting on the orders given by Jesus who we can see nor have any written form of laws about him.

So when Paul says "GRACE" it simply means on your own you can't please God but you have the model from God set before you.
That is underserved kindness (grace) from God.

JessicaRabbit:


I'm not sure you fully realize the absurdity of comparing a product of billions of years of evolution, to a magic trick. Neuroscience isn't some magician's smoke and mirrors; it's a complex dance of neurotransmitters, electrical impulses, and a lifetime of experiences shaping our perceptions. And please, with all due respect, spare me the Pharaoh's heart nonsense. The Bible is a collection of stories, not a physics textbook. If you want to talk evidence, stick to the realm of science, not ancient mythology.

Einstein was a brilliant mind, no doubt, but even geniuses are susceptible to flawed thinking. To claim that because he pondered determinism, everyone else should bow down to his musings is intellectually arrogant. The scientific method speaks for itself -- it is not based on blind acceptance of authority figures. And just because he grappled with free will doesn't mean he definitively disproved it. It's a complex philosophical question, not a binary switch. Look at you demanding evidence, yet throw around baseless claims about "cosmic beings" manipulating our hearts. The burden of proof lies with the one making extraordinary claims, not the skeptic asking for evidence. And even if we were in a simulation, so what? It wouldn't change the reality of our subjective experience. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "reality is just turtles all the way down, but those turtles are still pretty damn real."

As for the YouTube shorts, I've seen them, and I'm far from impressed. We can't tell for certain, but I'd wager they're more likely demonstrations of well-known psychological principles, cleverly edited to appear more mysterious than they are. If you want to impress me, you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, not cherry-picked internet clips. I feel I should also remind you -- because it seems you're a having a very fundamental misunderstanding here: Atheism isn't about blind rejection of everything unseen. It's about demanding evidence before accepting extraordinary claims! It's about using reason and critical thinking to navigate the complexities of the universe. So, before you try to control my nonexistent strings or manipulate my heart, you should try backing up your assertions with actual evidence and sound logic -- as is characteristic of any genuine intellectual exchange. Otherwise, you'll just be lost in a self-constructed reality of youtube shorts and ancient fairytales.

JessicaRabbit:


Let's address the "glitches" first.

Attributing random events to a simulated reality is a classic case of confirmation bias. You see a pattern where none exists, ignoring the vast majority of unremarkable spoon-bending that happens, you know, all the time. As for the speed of light, that's not a glitch, it's a fundamental law of physics, beautifully explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. It has nothing to do with video game limitations and everything to do with the fabric of spacetime itself. Just because we can't outrun a cosmic speed limit doesn't mean we're trapped in a computer program. You're also presenting a false dichotomy: either everything is a simulation or it's pure happenstance. Evolution begs to differ with this myopic distinction. It gives plausible explanations for the complexity of life without invoking invisible programmers or divine interventions. No magic required, just billions of years of natural selection tinkering away.

Finally, if you don't mind, let's keep this a science vs. faith conversation. Bringing in religious creation stories muddies the water and frankly, belongs in a different debate altogether. Thanks.

Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.

So you truly believe that the pinpoint laws of the universe are a result of "billions of years of evolution"?
As for scientists (that you have so much faith in), you can see what the ultimate scientist (Einstein) thinks about them - they are like little children in a library full of books who can't read!
Also Einstein didn't just dabble in determinism, he actually refused to take credit for his works, insisting we all dance to a tune intoned by a mysterious player in the distance.

As for freewill, have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from? Notice your thoughts just appear without your input. How about your dreams? How about prophetic dreams? How come you can't choose what dream to have? (A friend has an entity that comes to have sex with her in her dreams anytime she lags in her Christian faith; another, a straight male friend, has someone try to anally rape him in dream each time he didn't pray). How come there are addictions, why not use freewill and immediately overide them?

"Glitches in the matrix" are very far from "confirmation bias". They are scientifically verified and documented cases of children born with memory of their past lives intact. They are confirmed and video tapped cases of time being reset - things that already happened unhappening or happening again. You can see lots of those on YouTube.
As for the shorts, those are not even tip of the iceberg. Stories abound of people's encounter with the divine and the best ones don't make it to YouTube.

Finally, human reasoning and human critical thinking (that atheism relies so much on) have proven woefully inadequate in figuring out the nature of our universe, just as there is so much that science can't even come close to being able to explain.
Example, speed of light. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a speed limit in the universe. It is the kind of constraint imposed by speed of a processor. Our geniuses who say we likely live on a simulation are not saying it based on nothing. And if indeed we live in a world simulated by an external being, atheism falls apart to that extent!

DeepSight, HellVictorinho6, FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022
Seun, HopefulLandlord, LordReed, Jaephoenix
Knownunknown, TheSourcerer. Busybrain2233
1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack, Botragelad, Fourthpredator, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn
SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke
EnemyofGod2, kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001 SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist
FRANCISTOWN, SIRTee15, Aemmyjah

PoliteActivist:




Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.

So you truly believe that the pinpoint laws of the universe are a result of "billions of years of evolution"?
As for scientists (that you have so much faith in), you can see what the ultimate scientist (Einstein) thinks about them - they are like little children in a library full of books who can't read!
Also Einstein didn't just dabble in determinism, he actually refused to take credit for his works, insisting we all dance to a tune intoned by a mysterious player in the distance.

As for freewill, have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from? Notice your thoughts just appear without your input. How about your dreams? How about prophetic dreams? How come you can't choose what dream to have? (A friend has an entity that comes to have sex with her in her dreams anytime she lags in her Christian faith; another, a straight male friend, has someone try to anally rape him in dream each time he didn't pray). How come there are addictions, why not use freewill and immediately overide them?

"Glitches in the matrix" are very far from "confirmation bias". They are scientifically verified and documented cases of children born with memory of their past lives intact. They are confirmed and video tapped cases of time being reset - things that already happened unhappening or happening again. You can see lots of those on YouTube.
As for the shorts, those are not even tip of the iceberg. Stories abound of people's encounter with the divine and the best ones don't make it to YouTube.

Finally, human reasoning and human critical thinking (that atheism relies so much on) have proven woefully inadequate in figuring out the nature of our universe, just as there is so much that science can't even come close to being able to explain.
Example, speed of light. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a speed limit in the universe. It is the kind of constraint imposed by speed of a processor. Our geniuses who say we likely live on a simulation are not saying it based on nothing. And if indeed we live in a world simulated by an external being, atheism falls apart to that extent!

Evolution is a carefully documented and well-understood process. It's not magic, it's adaptation. Like a sculptor shaping clay over millennia, nature has sculpted the universe's laws through trial and error. Now, if you have a better explanation for gravity, magnetism, and the tastiness of food, please do share. Comparing scientists to children in a library is charmingly inaccurate. Yes, we haven't read all the books (yet!), but we're constantly learning, building upon the knowledge of those who came before us. And while Einstein grappled with determinism, he also said, "God does not play dice with the universe." So he wasn't exactly a poster boy for divine intervention. You asked about the origin of thoughts, dreams, and addictions. I think those are fascinating questions, all tackled by various fields like neuroscience and psychology. But claiming they disprove free will is like saying the existence of locks proves nobody has keys. We can explore the mechanics without negating the possibility of choice. As for prophetic dreams, well, confirmation bias is a powerful force. And let's not forget the countless dreams of falling teeth or being chased by chickens -- not exactly glimpses into the divine plan. "Scientifically verified" children with past-life memories? "Time resets" documented on YouTube? My friend, these sound more like anecdotes and wishful thinking than verifiable facts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and YouTube comments simply don't cut it. Of course, personal stories abound on YouTube. But anecdotes are not data, and confirmation bias thrives in echo chambers. If every encounter with the divine made it to YouTube, wouldn't the internet be a choir of hallelujahs? Instead, we have cat videos and conspiracy theories.

Saying the human reasoning is inadequate is like saying a hammer is useless because it can't sew. We use the tools we have to explore the universe, and science has been remarkably successful. The speed of light limit? It's not a processor constraint, it's a fundamental property of spacetime. And while simulations are interesting thought experiments, they hardly disprove atheism. In fact, even in a simulated reality, the same questions about free will and existence would remain.

To your credit, you've presented a buffet of intriguing ideas, but none of them truly hold up to scrutiny. Blind faith may be comforting, but it's a poor substitute for evidence and critical thinking. If you're truly interested in understanding the universe, I recommend ditching the YouTube rabbit hole and exploring the wonders of actual science. Start with Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, or even Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. You might be surprised by what you discover.

FRANCISTOWN:

So what meaningful things do christians have to teach?

Where life came from
Why we are here
Where we are going
What the future holds
How to find meaning in life


Questions that atheists, science, philosophers will never answer

DeepSight:


Time is a perfect intangible. Only the finite scientific time which is a dimension of motion in this universe can be understood the way we mostly do. Real time is stagnant and infinite, necessary and self existent .

How do you define real time?
You don't know what you're saying
Time is a product
Kind of a mystery to man
Just like space and matter
Which came first?

PoliteActivist:


Well, atheists reply that if God can come into existence by himself, so can vacuum energy which gave rise to big bang and the universe

What is vacuum energy?
Note this
God did not come into existence by himself.

Don't be ignorant
What does the law of energy say?

isan:
Like when someone is shot for example in a vital organ if the person get a surgeon very fast the person have at least 50/50 survival chance but if he doesn't see a surgeon and the people there just pray to God the person dies 100% ..... everything people gave God credit for human actually did it , that's why i say God doesn't interfere in human life

So, based on accident qnd operation is your only means to say God does not interfere with human matters?

PoliteActivist:


Your quarrel is with the dictionary. See definition of faith below. Unless you invent your own language

Good
It says complete trust or confidence in someone or something

Can you have complete trust in things that are not reality?
Is it just anyone we can show such trust?

There is a basis for such trust
Same applies with me

HellVictorinho6:


9163989689 opay


send me money b4 i answer ur questions