Dan56

"In Nebraska, Atheists Now Have Their Own Caucus in the Democratic Party" This kind of substantiates my observation in the other thread, Atheist tend to be Liberal.

That's fine, I don't mind someone objecting to my generalizations, I've got to learn to include a disclaimer that there are always exceptions. And yes, nearly everyone speaks more eloquently than Trump. I got the gist of what Jonathan was saying, he's both Atheist and Agnostic. I guess I just personally couldn't make a definitive conclusion (Atheism) while simultaneously claiming not to know (Agnosticism)? Its kind of like me being on a jury and deciding the fate of someone who's on trial for murder. There's no evidence to determine guilt, but juror Dan says, "Someone get a rope, just in case he did it". Likewise, Jonathan has made an absolute determination, with no evidence to support his verdict, so I guess that's where the Apatheism come in? Yes, I understand the difference between believing and knowing.. The problem with your analogies is that atheist and agnostics have no belief in the first place. Neither would buy a lottery ticket because one wouldn't believe the lottery existed and the other wouldn't know if the lottery existed.

I guess I am stupid, because I still don't get it? At first it seemed like "versatility" is your middle name, but to claim "I don't know whether or not God exists" and "I don't believe that God exists" in the same sentence seems contradictory. If you don't really know, you can't believe or disbelieve? It just seems illogical to me. According to the book I believe, I'm counting on the pendulum swinging

When I point out what most liberals support, I'm implying an agenda. Nearly everyone has an agenda, it not a bad thing as you suggest. I wasn't trying to get political, just making a general observation that people who have liberal moral standards are also inclined to be politically liberal. I'm aware that this is not always true across the board, because I know democrats who are Christians, oppose late term abortions, and the legalization of recreational marijuana. And it seems your the only one making it a political discussion by dwelling on it? I totally disagree with your opinion of AOC? You may think she speaks eloquently, but everything that Socialist says is crazy. Her "Green Deal" is off the charts, the girl lives in fantasy land. I'll acknowledge that Trump is an arrogant loud mouth, but I agree with most of his policies.. In any case, this is all and probably belongs in another thread.

I understand, your belief is in the science that has proven nothing except that your energy will continue and be transformed into some other form of existence. In a way, we aren't too far apart, as I believe the energy that sustains my physical existence will continue. The difference is spirit, soul, and consciousness. But just as a tree is altered to the energy of fire, all your essentially embracing is ashes, which is not much comfort to the dead tree. I see said the blind man.... I am conservative, so your correct, I'm sure others did get the impression that I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct. That's just my opinion, and I'm sure others think the conservative agenda is wrong, their comments make that obvious, and that's all I was pointing out. Beyond belief or the lack thereof, its probably why we don't agree on much, the liberal and conservative point of views clash. However, I did not mean to give the impression that someone liberal is automatically branded immoral or that nonbelievers are immoral. What's moral to one person can be immoral to another (apples & oranges). There's an enormous difference in the thinking of someone who voted for Trump and someone who voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just as there's a big difference in the thinking of those who accept or reject the bible. I don't believe I deliberately twist context, but Q&A change and constantly alter the original topic, so I tend to stray. Its not to bait others or revert to a straw man's argument, but an effort to explain myself by illustrating a comparative example, which is inevitably construed as a diversion. I don't feel attacked, but do feel a couple other Christians have exited conversations because they felt their beliefs were ridiculed. Just to say that I completely understand your position and its not my ambition to argue about non-existing facts. My only intent is to state what sways me to believe, because I think there is evidence, even though its not persuasive in the sense of being beyond doubt. As I've mentioned before, Agnosticism is the only absolute correct stance a person can take, because when push comes to shove, no one knows nothing. Its clear your all about 'absolutes', but as you wrote, "God could exist", and that's all I need to embrace and believe He does. I'm not here to be a source of contention or change minds, belief is a personal choice. A couple points of confusion though.. Your wrote "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. Is this conflating the 2 to be one in the same? In regards to "Atheist believe in nothing", it occurred to me that Atheist don't 'believe' at all unless something is proven? So 'nothing' becomes irrelevant. Very disappointed that your disparaging Thor, there's even been movies made about him, so its got to be true

Your right, constant attacks aren't a discussion.. From my perspective, 3 others here don't discuss, they just look for reasons to be insulted, and they usually find them even when they don't exist.. Its sensitivity on over-load. But regardless, I'll continue to express my opinions, even though half the responses have no merit. jmo

Re-read my post.... You intentionally added "Atheist believe in nothing"... I have repeatedly clarified that "Atheist believe in nothing divine". So it seems you can't distinguish the difference between "nothing" and "nothing divine". Are you pretending to misunderstand or just being contentious? I even expounded on "nothing divine" to include that it meant "no deity or God/gods"! I'm beginning to think your baiting me, because I refuse to believe that you're that stupid. Am I mistaken about you? I don't think the quotes contradict, the second is just an extension of the first.. "I believe you guys are extremely liberal because You expressed far left opinions (pro-abortion, hate Trump, etc) so I presumed your a Democrat from you opinions because it just seemed obvious." So I really don't understand why my observation is problematic for you? The liberal perspective doesn't necessarily make them wrong, its just as you wrote, an ideology that doesn't think the same way. But you are correct in that I was pinpointing the difference between liberal and conservative thinking.

Neither of us have "proof", we've just chosen to believe different things.. Its fine with me if you think your belief is more likely to be true, but please allow me the same courtesy. "Energy is immortal" is an unusual way to phrase it. So since energy changes state when you die, does your consciousness go with it? I believe many have already defined fundamentalism in many different negative ways, but it doesn't bother me at all. "You guys" was not specific to you. Those who express very liberal views are who I believe are liberal, but it was not all-inclusive. "I believe you guys are extremely liberal"was my remark in my previous post prior to the one you highlighted. What you quoted was my response as to why I made the previous statement. So I thought it was relevant since I was expressing my belief and then gave the reasons that supported my belief.. You know, being liberal is not a sin, so I don't know why anyone finds it insulting? And I'll take note of your second point, of course I recognize Atheist have morals, but they just aren't biblical. I defined what Atheism is a half dozen times and I defined it correctly "Atheist believe in nothing divine, no deity, God/gods". Here's the dictionaries short definition; "Atheist, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" Here's the longer definition; "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists." (Wikipedia) So, if Atheist take the definition as insulting, I can't change the definition to sooth their precious feelings.. It is what it is, and if an Atheist pretends to find the definition of Atheism to be offensive, then stupidity isn't on my end of the conversation.. If you have a different definition of Atheist, please redefine it.

What mistakes? Without specifics, I don't know what your talking about. But when someone mischaracterizes something I wrote or misconstrues the context of a point I'm making, I correct them by explaining what I was trying to emphasize. That's not apologizing per se, its just re-explaining something in a more simplistic way so you can comprehend an entire sentence instead of focusing on a couple of words you don't like. Remember that I only wrote, "I believe you guys are extremely liberal". That was a guess, and I'd still lay odds that most of these guys are liberal, even though they haven't admitted it. Imo, most of their positions are far left (anti-Christian, pro gay marriage, hatred of Trump, pro-abortion, etc). So its not a huge stretch to conclude someone is liberal when their opinions and positions pretty much mirror the democratic platform. And I'm aware Jonathan is agnostic, but I wasn't referring to him specifically, it was only a general comment directed towards atheism, which is why I wrote; "atheist believe nothing" is only a reference to the divine, in the sense that they believe in no God or gods." Somehow they keep spinning that remark into an insult, when its a simple point of fact? After-all, if an Atheist believed in anything divine, they would not be an atheist.

What a sweetheart .. You missed my point, I wasn't inferring that you don't have a life or a sense of belonging, I was speaking in respect to knowing where you came from and having a spiritual purpose. And yes, I'm aware that your convinced that you originated from pond scum, to apes, to man... Nothing mythical about that huh? Again, I didn't insinuate that you can't find value in your lives, my point was that you have no purpose beyond the here and now. In other words, after your dead, everything you own, belong to, and value, die with you. So my comment was from a spiritual perspective, you have no purpose beyond the grave. I don't say that to be mean, in fact its sad to me. And again, "atheist believe nothing" is only a reference to the divine, in the sense that they believe in no God or gods. You expressed far left opinions (pro-abortion, hate Trump, etc) so I presumed your a Democrat from you opinions because it just seemed obvious. But sorry if I mischaracterized your political affiliation. And I'm not arguing, I just state my opinions.. I suspect your only tired because you challenge everything I believe, but that's not really necessary. Gets some sleep old man

There are no wrong answers when your dealing with faith, some have it and others don't. I sense your frustration, so its probably best to bow out. We just think differently and therefore perceive things differently, and there's no resolution to that. So its better to just disagree than to get mad again. I believe you guys are extremely liberal and its been my experience that the far left mindset is........ Well never-mind, lets just say that I'm sure your all still convinced that Trump conspired with the Russians to undermine the election, because there's no objective evidence to prove otherwise.

Partly... Because people who believe nothing don't have a clue where they came from or why they're here. Believe it or not, the bible answers both of those questions. 1. That's right, we are called by faith.. If God wanted to prove himself beyond what He's already done and made evident, He would. 2. If you have the evidence to determine a fact, you eliminate the necessity of judgement. i.e; If I say the sun is bright, that's not something that requires judgement, decision, or choice. 3. If evidence is all conclusive, you don't have the option of a choice. If God appeared and proved Himself beyond any and all doubt, you have no choice but to acknowledge God exist. 4. Without a creator, you have no cause, purpose, or meaning. That's not a deflection, its philosophically relevant. 5. So what has the cumulative process of science determined about your origin & purpose? Absolutely nothing except very speculative hypothesis. At least the bible defines a purpose. 6. There are no facts that satisfy you, but fulfilled prophesies are factual, all the cities in the NT have been proven to exist, Pontius Pilate and other characters were real, etc. 7. We don't have the objective facts that you require, but the bible is full of subjective evidence that lends credibility to its authenticity and reliability. But yes, faith is required, but its not blind faith. In a materialistic world there is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good... That's why people care, those things are only recognized when one develops a spiritual perspective. You won't find the answers by discerning facts derived from your physical surroundings.

God does not want people to react by evidence alone, people in the past had solid evidence, but it didn't matter or change anything. Objective evidence invalidates the necessity of faith and trust, and "Without faith, its impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Evidence removes choice, so with concrete evidence, we could not choose or reject God. The alternative is to rely on ones own understanding, but that's what Eve did when she rationalized how God was mistaken and obedience wasn't necessary. What is you origin and purpose? Science has no real answers, and in the absence of facts, at least the bible provides a plausible answer.

I also wrote; "And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty". As I've previously stated, there's archeological evidence, prophetic evidence, etc. While these factors aren't direct confirmation, they surely instill some credibility that a written document isn't a fabricated lie. But granted, its accepted by faith, and not objective evidence. Besides the fact that there are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies about Jesus as the Messiah, along with the historical accuracy of the bible, its easy to understand how God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. For believers, there's internal, external, and biblical evidence that conclusively proves God does exist. Not everyone needs to be hit between the eyes with a 2X4 to see the light.. Creation itself makes it evident.

Of course I don't personally believe there's any "IF's" about it, but I used the word in the context of something to consider for those who don't believe anything. It all comes down to belief, not evidence. While the bible is its own best witness, there's nothing to prove it could not have been a collection of old wives tales. It all boils down to what a person chooses to believe. All the evidence in the world would not convince a person who's chosen not to accept it. An atheist like cuchulain wouldn't believe any of it, even if he witnessed Christ walk on water. He'd likely be renting some scuba equipment and diving down to see what was holding Jesus up and supporting him under the water. If a person is looking for reasons not to believe it, they'll find it, and no evidence would suffice. And for the person looking for evidence to believe, they'll find plenty. "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). If God inspired it, the memories of those who witnessed the events aren't something I question. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1). If true, then what God inspired and brought to fruition, would not be allowed to be polluted, corrupted, or altered. The Dead Sea scrolls were written over 2200 years ago and the OT we have today pretty much replicates them word for word. So where's the evidence of corruption? I've obviously chosen to believe God is capable of preserving His word because if He hasn't, then no one can be rightly judged.

Not really, because if you read verse 8 "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually... And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth ” (Genesis 6:5&7). So your obviously confused again, because unlike God, Satan promotes wickedness, he doesn't destroy it..

Well, if God preserved the OT, I trust He's capable of keeping the NT intact. The best evidence of that is the bible itself, the more its studied, the more evident it is that it could not have been comprised or put together by man, and the spiritual context remains consistent throughout. The first 2 verses of Revelation reveal that's its "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (vs 1) so everything John wrote was "The testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw" (vs 2). All the books that comprise the NT were all authenticated, and all but Revelation are estimated to have been written 1 to 3 decades after Christ death, with confirmation of known autographs. The books discarded were generally written 200 years later via unknown authorship. So I believe its all truth, not just bits sprinkled together.. And consider that if Christ was who he claimed to be, and did what it says he did, that God would allow the story to be compromised?

I think that a Being capable of destroying the world demonstrates complete control. Probably not the kind of control you'd approve of, but the type of power that keeps things orderly when people with free will get "out of control". When wickedness abounds everywhere, God is not the psychopath.

I suppose the difference is that you would have been inspired by the Beatles, but your work is still your own. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote directly about what Christ did and said, his words and deeds, not their own. If Aerosmith changed your lyrics, then your work would have been changed, and people may very well believe you wrote the polluted lyrics. But God knows what He inspired men to write, and Christ being the Living Word, knew the scriptures, and he did not have a problem with what was written or say they were altered. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

Thinking outside the box was revealed by what mieshec continued to write; " their is nothing man can provide to offset validity of the manuscripts in scripture......To think of what this world was before man destroyed it.........and to believe that God has it all under control. That's the difference between being inside the box, where someone adheres to a monkey-see monkey-do mentality, e.g; a monkey looks at a tree and only see's something to climb. Their entire philosophy is limited to what they can only see, hear, and touch. Thinking outside the box makes one cognizant of things beyond what's physically and materially obvious.

The Son was the manifestation of God in the flesh, so in that respect, God directly delivered His message in person, and He assigned apostles to write it down for us.. Can't get much more direct than that. Also consider that God is spirit and infinite, so how could you possibly reveal that which is incomprehensible? A DVD just wouldn't cut it. We can't even understand the vast expanse of the universe, yet alone grasp the power that brought it about. Remember, righteousness and sin don't mix, so God separated himself from the world until Christ became sin for our sake's, and that's when the Living Word was literally revealed to all.

Two angels told Lot to get out of Sodom, they were not human, nor was Gabriel who prophesied to Mary that she was going to give birth.. Jesus was a prophet, and he was God manifested in the flesh. So while God usually uses prophets to relay messages, its not always so. And if the message is God inspired, the mode of delivery doesn't matter. Its the servants of God who do the work, but the message is divine, preserved, and inspired by God. Billions have heard, received, and accepted the Word of God, so apparently He's not as weak or helpless at conveying a message as you may think.

There you have it... Anyone one can be rigid or inflexible... I don't believe it insinuates brain damage, just a stubbornness not to change one's attitude or position on something.

Point taken