Posted on 12/07/2025 9:40:34 AM PST by daniel1212
Ditto.
Sometime back before he passed, Mr. Robinson had posted something and had expected it to be of interest to those in the forum. I responded, but that thread was 'unproductive' in terms of length and cogent responses.
As to those who so energetically use "God" -- Theos -- to be anti-Theos busy themselves with contemplating God, even if in the negative. So the ardent atheist busies himself with no-God! With a rather singular goal, to tell others of his faith in no-God. It is a belief, simply because "proof" ( or lack thereof ) is a decision made by belief.
Sometimes, I substitute "Being" because relatively few resent being itself. Of course there are maladies in which this is true, but ultimately they are self-destructive. The phrase, "in Whom we have our Being," can be written without capitalization. In whom we have our being.
A great challenge for any of us is to use science and secular philosophy ( think, proof or evidence ) to explain how consciousness forms out of matter. How does our awareness of being erupt from mere matter? Here, science fumbles big time. The rather unpleasant Dennett from Tufts talked a good game, until one found his own statement that among his goals was the destruction of religion, a foolish notion. It made his "Consciousness Explained" from 1991 ( which I read on a transatlantic flight after buying it in an airport bookstore ) an academic marvel; all sorts of examples leading to no real conclusion. Rather ¯\_(?)_/¯.... This is one reason why thinking LLMs will answer deep question is a losing proposition.
Thread lengthens in part by an exchange of "yes, there is" in response to "no, there isn't" and back and forth. It has been my experience that the "blind watchmaker" argument ( trotted out by Dawkins in 1986 ) and similar gambits fail to 'evangelize' for evolution as belief as opposed to just theory. Lots of "sciency" talk like Dawkins' and lots of philosophic chatter like Dennett's do little more than bounce back "belief."
Belief in no-God -- mired in our language itself -- is faith of its own. In part that is why its proponents need to say it again and again, as if repetition is some form of progress towards a conclusion. But like a webpage with a counter for 'number of visits' or a litany or repetition of "beads" and the like, it is simply repetition.
This forum is mostly political, though of broader impact than that. One finds differences between faiths, and the avid atheist is among the "believers," as they can only believe -- in the cognitive science sense / definition -- in their unsupported proposition. As we express faith as well. Stringent proofs are not for us. That "leap of faith" -- to use Tillich's phrase -- is required. The atheist leaps too. And to use Buber's phrase, sometimes it is goo counsel to treat others not as "it," but as in relation, "I and Thou," as worth being in relation. Using capitals, even if old-fashioned, Worth Being in Relation, by a leap of Faith. Therefore, at the minimum, trust -- Trust -- is wise. And there still will be disputation between those who wish to fight about it....
Best wishes.
Actually, what you are doing is creating strawmen (fallacies) so you can feel justified in rejecting him.
If you want to know who he really is and what he is really like, take a long hard look at Jesus. That's who you are rejecting.
We read from someone how thinks he's found "contradictions and absurdities" --- "Look at my posts and address my points one by one. Use that most valuable organ that God gave you - your brain. That would make God happy."
Language is an interesting thing. An atheist gets lots of attention in the thread, and in the end, his use of the lowercase "god" slips back to the uppercase "God," because he proves that atheists REQUIRE the language of God/god as a fundamental part of an "evangelical" fervor to tell others, and the habit of language itself moves by customary ways.
This is the structure of correcting a "false belief" by advocating for a "true belief."
It has been my experience that a true atheist rarely cares to correct others about a "false" belief, because "meh." In contradistinction, the ardent believer is 'a-Theos' needs to say "anti," to claim to find "contradictions and absurdities" when such can be found on all sides, especially as an atheist like Sam Harris talkied for hours trying to come up with a basis for ethical behavior by referring only to evolutionary principles. Whether the "blind watchmaker" or any of the other metaphors are trotted out, the atheist is stuck with language -- as it requires God to say no-God, demands a Theos to say a-Theos. And sometimes tries to use lowercase letters to bolster an argument, but then slips back to uppercase out of habit.
It's a jolly thing that the enthusiasm to point out "contradictions and absurdities" is so rarely turned in upon itself. Because the "mote and beam" parable holds. Sometimes they evidence themselves as chips on the shoulder, and sometimes as the urge to point out another's "contradictions and absurdities" while not noticing the "contradictions and absurdities" in one's own worldview.
So you’re saying God is not perfect? He screws up, too.
I don’t call those things “faith” - it’s playing the odds based on experience and evidence - observing cause and effect and learning from it.
You don’t jump off cliffs because nobody has done it and come out in good shape (unless they were parasailing).
Well, I've learned new words! Thanks! I figured them out by prefix, but looked them up anyway. Came up with the phrase, "causing ire is my greatest happiness."
Some of the exchanges on this thread surely seem about "causing ire," which seems unnecessary to my view. On other threads and regarding other subjects, this seems a fine descriptive to "nail" what goes on, from time to time.
As has been said of Satanism and other sorts of notions, at the root lies God. And resentment, which so often is a reaction to injury or even perceived injury where there is none really. Echoes of the older French, secular socialist thought come to mind. Not to mention Marx' view about which Wurmbrand and Kengor have written, with the added reflection that Marx worked in England and is buried in Highgate. Such "European" sorts of thinking imported to these United States.
Goading others does seem a bit of a sport here on FR threads these days.
Well said. Resentment from an obsession with victimhood, which is the natural result of Marxist indoctrination.
It surely seems the entire strategy of the Democrat Party and the DSA as well.
Since the thread is in part about the biblical narrative, start to finish, and how it is to be read, one may observe that the "more crafty" serpent begins with an argument we might re-flavor into the post-Marxist "ressentiment," which links sadly but nicely to animosity and/or rancor. This is the game, because this was the game, long before the language and vocabulary we are using were formed.
And so, resentment for somehow being denied that knowledge -- think in terms of "proof" in the contexts of this thread -- of good and evil. It is the justification for "I'm angry, so I get / win / take ....." And the justification of "my belief" is better / more true than yours. All of which is fueled by the emotion of "belief." Because "I'm right and you're wrong!" Such a short step from that to "mostly peaceful" demonstrations and criminals as "victims" of the system.
Obedience or punishment.
That is how trauma based mind control works.
That is the classic wife beater sociopath.
***
That is a really, really stupid and dishonest argument, especially when “disobedience” means “actively hurting other people.”
Do you think it’s okay for thieves and murderers to go free too? Or are you just whining like a little toddler that when YOU hurt other people you aren’t allowed to get away with it?
I am referring to intellectual disobedience.
“Believe what I believe or you will burn.”
I am referring to intellectual disobedience.
“Believe what I believe or you will burn.”
***
Considering that atheism directly led to the murder of hundreds of millions of people, my point stands, and your argument remains dumb.
I agree that atheists (especially Communists) have no clean hands on this topic.
Virtue signaling while using intimidation tactics has been a trait of homo sapiens of all kinds throughout history.
Why did God begot his Son?
I thought it had been scientifically proven that nothing decided to create everything, and presto everything suddenly was everywhere.
5 words that refute evolution…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Evolution has been seriously undermined by science itself.
5 words that refute evolution…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Evolution has been seriously undermined by science itself.
👍
Yes, and thus a question to ask one who defines atheism as the "absence of belief in any supernatural God" would be, "on what basis did you come to hold that position, or at least sustain it? To which they likely would respond with arguments that spell "faith" as to conclusions of data.
As we express faith as well. Stringent proofs are not for us. That "leap of faith" -- to use Tillich's phrase -- is required. The atheist leaps too.
While God can make His reality undeniably incontrovertibly manifest (though the universe et al leaves man without excuse) as He did to the Hebrews of Exodus, so that even old pharaoh had to concede the God of the Hebrews was real, yet as he and they exampled, that did not make most to be true souls of faith. And so while God can basically force one to believe that He is real, that would not convert the anti-theist (accurate term for most all atheists, though all of us are enemies of God if not of faith), who demand God perform what they say would require.
Which is akin to rape, and if God performed for such persons then He would not be appreciated like a cheap women, or at least not prepare the heart for effectual receiving. For Divine Truth is like a veiled women, not a cheap bare all, but with enough revelation to elicit further investigation of heart, and warranting it, yet only those who enter into covenant will receive the fullest revelation. (Psalms 25:14; Exodus 33:18; John 14:21; 1 Corinthians 13:10; 1 Jn. 3:2; Revelation 22:4: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there...(Revelation 22:4,5)
Thus the degree of divine revelation one is given is an inducement to pursue more, and a test of what that souls really wants, and if at some point, this is pursued, then more shall be given, leading to The Light (as explained more in post 110)
For earnest seeking prepares the heart for effectual receiving.
No, I’m saying you have no idea what GOD intends - just like e.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.