Salvation for Fallen Humans & Fallen Angels (A Practical Guide)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

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

 

Your words.  Not mine.  It works for me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Yet again, explaining has done no good at all.  So, I will make things simple.  One term. No distinctions.

 

 

I am an Apatheist.  Because it doesn't matter whether or not God exists -- and I don't care whether or not God exists.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Johnathan...have you heard the good news of Odin?

[Key]

32 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Johnathan...have you heard the good news of Odin?

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yet again, explaining has done no good at all.  So, I will make things simple.  One term. No distinctions.

I am an Apatheist.  Because it doesn't matter whether or not God exists -- and I don't care whether or not God exists.

 

That's fine, sorry for the confusion, but you did write;  "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. and now "I am an Apatheist".. So I don't think its me that's baiting? Atheism and Agnosticism are 2 different things, but its fine if you want to be both.. But it would be like me claiming to be a monotheist and polytheist? And then when you question how that's possible, and I accuse you of baiting me? Anyhow, there's no need for you to explain your conclusion that there is no God while simultaneously saying that you don't know if there's a God.   Your better off sticking with Apatheism, I agree that it describes you the best.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's fine, sorry for the confusion, but you did write;  "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. and now "I am an Apatheist".. So I don't think its me that's baiting? Atheism and Agnosticism are 2 different things, but its fine if you want to be both.. But it would be like me claiming to be a monotheist and polytheist? And then when you question how that's possible, and I accuse you of baiting me? Anyhow, there's no need for you to explain your conclusion that there is no God while simultaneously saying that you don't know if there's a God.   Your better off sticking with Apatheism, I agree that it describes you the best.

 

 

To put this into terms that you will understand:  It would be like you, claiming to be a Republican and an American.  They are not the same thing at all.  Yet -- you manage to be both.  You are also a Conservative.  Three labels apply to you.  You're also a man.  Four labels apply to you.

 

Are you still confused?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

 

Yes, to both Cuchulain and to Key.

 

I know a little bit, about The All Father, with his one eye and two ravens.  How he constantly walks about the world of men, in disguise.  Judging the heroes who might be worthy of Valhalla.  

 

Woe unto the world.  For Ragnorock is coming; when the living will envy the dead.  When the Mighty Thor and the Mitgard Serpent will destroy each other in battle.  When even the gods will perish -- and all of Humanity with them.

 

Then the cycle begins all over again.  With the man and woman, set aside by Father Odhin, against this future need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's fine, sorry for the confusion, but you did write;  "That's why I'm Agnostic" and "That's why I'm an Atheist".. and now "I am an Apatheist".. So I don't think its me that's baiting? Atheism and Agnosticism are 2 different things, but its fine if you want to be both.. But it would be like me claiming to be a monotheist and polytheist? And then when you question how that's possible, and I accuse you of baiting me? Anyhow, there's no need for you to explain your conclusion that there is no God while simultaneously saying that you don't know if there's a God.   Your better off sticking with Apatheism, I agree that it describes you the best.

Schrodinger's cat. Cat is put in a box with food and poison. The box is delivered to an address. Now until the box is opened, we don't know if the cat is alive, or dead because it ate one of the two items. So, until it is opened, it can be assumed to be both alive and dead. The key is evidence to support one or the other, when the box is opened to reveal it.

Simply stated by Jonathan, he is an Atheist, as there is no evidence of a deity, so he doesn't believe. He's an Agnostic, as he assumes there is the possibility, but doesn't know, because there is no evidence to support a belief or not.

Therefore, Jonathan is Schrodinger's cat.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Schrodinger's cat. Cat is put in a box with food and poison. The box is delivered to an address. Now until the box is opened, we don't know if the cat is alive, or dead because it ate one of the two items. So, until it is opened, it can be assumed to be both alive and dead. The key is evidence to support one or the other, when the box is opened to reveal it.

Simply stated by Jonathan, he is an Atheist, as there is no evidence of a deity, so he doesn't believe. He's an Agnostic, as he assumes there is the possibility, but doesn't know, because there is no evidence to support a belief or not.

Therefore, Jonathan is Schrodinger's cat.

 

 

I'm starting to understand Dan.  There is no room in his mind for ambiguity.  It all comes down to faith -- and the faith requires absolute certitude.  He is incapable of understanding a lack of certitude -- either for or against.  There is no room for nuance.  There is no room for shades of grey.  Such a mind does not distinguish between "innocent" and "not guilty."    (or "not guilty" and "complete vindication")   It is all or nothing.  All in or all out.  He can not understand "neither".    He can not understand "both".  He will not understand this reply.

 

Let us not confuse rigid minds, with subtleties beyond their comprehension.  I'm going with Apatheist.  Because it doesn't matter and I don't care.  For real.  It's Dan.  Do you care what he thinks?  I've tried and I'm done.     

 

A small aside.  Dan can't understand, how it's possible, to be Agnostic and Atheist at the same time.  You think he's going to get Schrodinger's Cat?     

 

 

A bit of folk wisdom.  Never try to teach a pig to sing.  The attempt is doomed to fail and it will annoy the pig.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

To put this into terms that you will understand:  It would be like you, claiming to be a Republican and an American.  They are not the same thing at all.

 

Being a Republican describes my political affiliation while being an American describes where I reside and my country of origin, so yes, I can be both.

But Atheists claim there is no God while Agnostics just don't know, the two aren't synonymous. Atheism draws the conclusion 'there are no gods', while Agnosticism makes no such determination. So I continue to see a distinct difference in thinking "There is no God" verses "I don't know if there is a God". Its tantamount to Christian saying; "There is one true God, but I don't know if He exist", which is like professing your faith and denying it all in one breath..But none-the-less, you need not explain or dwell on it, whatever works for you is fine with me.

 

4 hours ago, Key said:

Simply stated by Jonathan, he is an Atheist, as there is no evidence of a deity, so he doesn't believe. He's an Agnostic, as he assumes there is the possibility, but doesn't know, because there is no evidence to support a belief or not.

Therefore, Jonathan is Schrodinger's cat.

 

I get that he's an atheist because he doesn't believe and he's agnostic because he doesn't know; i.e, he can't believe what he doesn't know. Just as I could say that I'm a Christian because I believe and I'm an Agnostic because I don't know...  But it just sounds absurd, like I'm straddling a fence. But then again, I know a person who claims to be Muslim and Christian, because she believes Allah and God are one in the same... Confusion on overload   

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Being a Republican describes my political affiliation while being an American describes where I reside and my country of origin, so yes, I can be both.

But Atheists claim there is no God while Agnostics just don't know, the two aren't synonymous. Atheism draws the conclusion 'there are no gods', while Agnosticism makes no such determination. So I continue to see a distinct difference in thinking "There is no God" verses "I don't know if there is a God". Its tantamount to Christian saying; "There is one true God, but I don't know if He exist", which is like professing your faith and denying it all in one breath..But none-the-less, you need not explain or dwell on it, whatever works for you is fine with me.

 

 

I get that he's an atheist because he doesn't believe and he's agnostic because he doesn't know; i.e, he can't believe what he doesn't know. Just as I could say that I'm a Christian because I believe and I'm an Agnostic because I don't know...  But it just sounds absurd, like I'm straddling a fence. But then again, I know a person who claims to be Muslim and Christian, because she believes Allah and God are one in the same... Confusion on overload   

 

 

Please.  Pay attention this time.

 

But Atheists claim there is no God   

     I make no such claim.  You insist that this is my position.  Pay attention this time.  That is not my position.

 

Atheism draws the conclusion 'there are no gods',

     You keep saying that.  No.  This is not the Atheist position.  No matter how many times you get it wrong -- it will still be wrong.

 

"There is no God"

     Again, that is not the Atheist position.  Your constant assertion that it is, does not make it so.

 

In summary:

 

1.  The concept of Atheism is clearly beyond your grasp.  I'm tired of explaining Atheism to you.  It's truly an exercise in futility.  It's my own fault.  I used to be a substitute Public School teacher, with a license in Special Ed. (CRMD)  Children with Retarded Mental Development.  It was my personal conceit, that I could explain simple things to anyone.  Clearly, I was mistaken.     

 

2.  Your ideas about Agnosticism are a little off.  Close enough to try and work with, but not while discussing Atheism.  You can only handle one idea at a time.  Maybe.     

 

3.  I'm going to focus on Apatheism.  It seems to generate the least amount of confusion.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

"There is no God"

  Again, that is not the Atheist position.

 

I know an Atheist who constantly tells me that no God exist, so perhaps you don't speak for all of them? I guess there might be levels of Atheism, some taking a harder line than others? I'd just say that if your position isn't "There is no God", or you haven't concluded "There are no gods", then perhaps your not a die hard Atheist after-all? But define yourself as you please, I think Apatheism describes you the best, you don't know and don't care.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I know an Atheist who constantly tells me that no God exist, so perhaps you don't speak for all of them? I guess there might be levels of Atheism, some taking a harder line than others? I'd just say that if your position isn't "There is no God", or you haven't concluded "There are no gods", then perhaps your not a die hard Atheist after-all? But define yourself as you please, I think Apatheism describes you the best, you don't know and don't care.

 

 

     

 

 

[cuchulain]

I want to shake Schroedingers box before I open it and see if it meows...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I want to shake Schroedingers box before I open it and see if it meows...

 

 

That's a good thought.  If you do hear the cat, open the box quickly and give the cat some water.

 

If you don't hear anything, give a sniff.  If it smells like death, you don't want to look.

 

 

 

[Key]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

That's a good thought.  If you do hear the cat, open the box quickly and give the cat some water.

 

If you don't hear anything, give a sniff.  If it smells like death, you don't want to look.

 

 

 

Sound might be good to try. Smell? Not so much. Cat may have gotten quite dirty in that box. Might have relieved itself, being cooped up in a box with no where else to go, let alone being jostled around by the delivery guy.

[Key]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

But then again, I know a person who claims to be Muslim and Christian, because she believes Allah and God are one in the same... Confusion on overload   

Ah, but there are people who believe God has many names, and/or can be every god to everyone.

As He is a God, and supposedly all things are possible with Him, how can we say He truly isn't?

You could quote Scripture all you want, but that isn't proof to everyone. The Bible may be true to only Christians, just as the Koran is to Muslims, and the Torah is for Jews.

How is that for confusion overload?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Ah, but there are people who believe God has many names, and/or can be every god to everyone.

As He is a God, and supposedly all things are possible with Him, how can we say He truly isn't?

You could quote Scripture all you want, but that isn't proof to everyone. The Bible may be true to only Christians, just as the Koran is to Muslims, and the Torah is for Jews.

How is that for confusion overload?

 

 

The One God with many names is not a new thought.  It's a very old thought.  The question remains.  Does it matter?  Why does it matter?

 

 

 

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, Key said:

You could quote Scripture all you want, but that isn't proof to everyone.

 

 

True, without belief scripture means nothing

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Does it matter?

 

It doesn't matter unless you believe it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

True, without belief scripture means nothing

 

 

It doesn't matter unless you believe it.

 

Alright.