The atheist delusion.

[Tercon]

Given that you can't get past the accusation to actually provide any evidence, your posts are pointless.

And for good reason, as I have seen nothing in what you said to be in the least bit biblical or enlightening. Rather it is downright gloomy.

Very true! I'm certainly not engaging in any kind of special pleading

If you don't know, then don't pretend you do silly.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that one's awareness is far greater than any epistemology one may come up with. By its very nature, the faculty of knowing is reflective, derivative. It cannot be used to validate anything as this places the faculty in a foundational position that it does not deserve. Adam walks with God, yet he sees something in knowledge that can only offer separation from the direct connection he already has with God.

You cannot focus on what someone else done wrong and then think that observation is any indication of how Christ affects the believe in regards to the truth and reality of God. That's like playing snooker with a blind fold.

The studies clearly show that the stimulus that precedes an intellectual reaction comes from the heart. Subjects are placed in front of a screen and asked to register favorable or unfavorable reactions to whatever appears on the screen. Sensors hooked to their skull, chest etc. indicate that impulses originate in the chest THEN register in the brain.

All that shows is the wickedness of the heart. According to the Bible we are to be renewed of the mind and not the heart. The mind is where we believe and experience the truth and reality of God, because the heart of man is too evil to experience anything of God.

And having the same spirit of the faith, according to that which hath been written, `I believed, therefore I did speak;' we also do believe, therefore also do we speak; knowing that He who did raise up the Lord Jesus, us also through Jesus shall raise up, and shall present with you, for the all things [are] because of you, that the grace having been multiplied, because of the thanksgiving of the more, may abound to the glory of God; wherefore, we faint not, but if also our outward man doth decay, yet the inward is renewed day by day; for the momentary light matter of our tribulation, more and more exceedingly an age-during weight of glory doth work out for us -- we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen [are] temporary, but the things not seen [are] age-during. (2 Corinthians 4:13-18)

if so be ye did hear him, and in him were taught, as truth is in Jesus; ye are to put off concerning the former behaviour the old man, that is corrupt according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man, which, according to God, was created in righteousness and kindness of the truth. (Ephesians 4:21-24)

Lie not one to another, having put off the old man with his practices, and having put on the new, which is renewed in regard to knowledge, after the image of Him who did create him; where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman -- but the all and in all – Christ. (Colossians 3:9-11)

Genesis 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

Jeremiah 7:24
Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.

Psalm 141:4
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing,
To practice deeds of wickedness
With men who do iniquity;
And do not let me eat of their delicacies.

Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Psalm 14:1-3
For the choir director. A Psalm of David.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:1-3
For the choir director; according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.
God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is anyone who understands,
Who seeks after God.
Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 94:11
The Lord knows the thoughts of man,
That they are a mere breath.

Jeremiah 17:9-10
“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
“I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

Matthew 15:18-19
But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Mark 7:20-23
And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.

​

 

[York]

The Terconian Delusion: failing to distinguish between act and object of belief.

Is belief an act? The verb is stative: when you believe or trust or love you are in a state. You can act out of that state - perform loving acts because of the state you are in.

But believing itself isn't an an act.

Take trust. If a person demonstrates themselves trustworthy, you enter a state of trust because of their effect on you. The decision to trust (decision an act) really only arises because of the prior effect they have had on you.

 

[Whateverman]

Is belief an act? The verb is stative: when you believe or trust or love you are in a state. You can act out of that state - perform loving acts because of the state you are in.

But believing itself isn't an an act.

Take trust. If a person demonstrates themselves trustworthy, you enter a state of trust because of their effect on you. The decision to trust (decision an act) really only arises because of the prior effect they have had on you.

The person Nouveau was responding to (ie. Tercon) is notorious here for, um, "having his way with" the English language. Read a dozen of his posts, and you'll quickly recognize that definitions, grammar and logic are completely alien concepts (to him).

 

[York]

I do. I don't see ANY evidence for a god, let alone the special case of God. There is more evidence for Santa Claus.

In order to decide you don't see evidence for God you would first have to decide what kind of evidence God would provide and conclude that the absence of it meant no God.

Which means you would need an accurate model of God to work from.

How would you figure this out? Because if you don't then your not seeing evidence would, in all likelyhood be a function of your inaccurate model.

 

[York]

The person Nouveau was responding to (ie. Tercon) is notorious here for, um, "having his way with" the English language. Read a dozen of his posts, and you'll quickly recognize that definitions, grammar and logic are completely alien concepts (to him).

Having discussed with Tercon before I'd have to disagree. But then I share his view to an extent, making it an easier read.

 

[Whateverman]

Having discussed with Tercon before I'd have to disagree. But then I share his view to an extent, making it an easier read.

OK, I appreciate the new perspective. Thank you.

 

[York]

OK, I appreciate the new perspective. Thank you.

I'm a mechanical engineer and am particularily interested in the way God works from that perspective.

Which means approaching things logically and rationally. So we should get on like a house on fire

?

 

[Whateverman]

I'm a mechanical engineer and am particularily interested in the way God works from that perspective.

Which means approaching things logically and rationally. So we should get on like a house on fire

?

Thanks. A genuine chuckle with the morning coffee is a good way to start the day

 

[York]

Thanks. A genuine chuckle with the morning coffee is a good way to start the day

We'll see can we put that smile on the other side of your face in time!

 

[Temujin]

In order to decide you don't see evidence for God you would first have to decide what kind of evidence God would provide and conclude that the absence of it meant no God.

Which means you would need an accurate model of God to work from.

How would you figure this out? Because if you don't then your not seeing evidence would, in all likelyhood be a function of your inaccurate model.

Not at all. I see no evidence for the Jabberwocky either, and I have absolutely no idea what that looks like. I have been brought up in a Christian country, with 6 generations of preachers in the family. I have a reasonable idea what a god would consist of. For a start, a god is supernatural, and there is no evidence of anything supernatural at all, let alone anything that could be called a god.

It isn't reasonable to expect people to believe in an extraordinary concept by default. The onus is on God, or his representatives, to show me some evidence to work with. There isn't any.

 

[5wize]

We'll see can we put that smile on the other side of your face in time!

LoL... yeah... we'll get ours when Dad gets home eh? He'll probably just go to his paper, pipe and slippers and be slightly amused at most. Just like now so it seems. No reason to think any different from our current experience level of this "engaged" father figure - this "model of God" reality actually presents us to work with.

 

[York]

Not at all. I see no evidence for the Jabberwocky either, and I have absolutely no idea what that looks like. I have been brought up in a Christian country, with 6 generations of preachers in the family.

You should visit the Arminian / Calvinism forum - about the nastiest place in the world for things discussion forum.

There is a lot of disagreement about the nature of God there. And they can't both be right. Indeed I think neither are.

So to what degree ought we suppose your model of God accurately reflects God (if he exists)

Don't atheists regularily cite the 60 squillion versions of Christianity to make their point?

I have a reasonable idea what a god would consist of. For a start, a god is supernatural, and there is no evidence of anything supernatural at all, let alone anything that could be called a god.

How would one go about testing for the supernatural - given science tends to be good at testing the natural?

Take 'prayer experiments' into the efficacy or otherwise of prayer. Doesn't help ... is the conclusion.

But that's ridiculous. It assumes a) the people praying are Christians (in God's eyes), b) God would partake in an experiement aimed at evidencing his possible existence.

That's psuedo science, not science.

It isn't reasonable to expect people to believe in an extraordinary concept by default. The onus is on God, or his representatives, to show me some evidence to work with. There isn't any.

I would agree that you ought not believe anything without good reason. As I say elsewhere, belief is a stative verb, a state you enter. The onus is indeed on the object of belief to produce that state in you.

And when it comes to something like God, the threshold is high. He would need to provide outstanding evidence of his existence in order to produce a state of belief in you.

I don't think its up to his representatives. This would take God himself evidencing himself to you. Now his representatives (me for example) can be used along the way. But in the heel of the hunt, this is really a gig between you and him.

The question is: how does he go about attempting to bring you to belief. How does that work in practice?

I think its very commoner garden and not overtly spiritual or, from your perspective, supernatural. Indeed, you are in-process each and every day. He is far closer and fsr more involved in your everydsy life than you could imagine.

In my view at least. The question is whether I am right. But with 60 squillion denoninations out there..

 

[5wize]

Is belief an act? The verb is stative: when you believe or trust or love you are in a state. You can act out of that state - perform loving acts because of the state you are in.

But believing itself isn't an an act.

Take trust. If a person demonstrates themselves trustworthy, you enter a state of trust because of their effect on you. The decision to trust (decision an act) really only arises because of the prior effect they have had on you.

Does that apply to God too, the maker of hurricane, volcano, earthquake and flood? The allower of wanton disease and infirmary? Or does He get special pleading in the trust dept?

 

[York]

Does that apply to God too, the maker of hurricane, volcano, earthquake and flood? The allower of wanton disease and infirmary? Or does He get special pleading in the trust dept?

The standard answer to this you will know. Man created, given dominion over the earth.

Man opted to boot out God, fell, and all he had dominion over fell with him. And so earthquakes, disease, horror - a reflection of what goes on inside of man.

What's the standard response to this?

 

[York]

LoL... yeah... we'll get ours when Dad gets home eh? He'll probably just go to his paper, pipe and slippers and be slightly amused at most. Just like now so it seems. No reason to think any different from our current experience level of this "engaged" father figure - this "model of God" reality actually presents us to work with.

I was referring to the discussion to come between myself and Whateverman. Not so much the wrath of God as the wrath of a logical, reasoned approach to discussion on the subject.

Its not the preserve of atheists to be logical and rational. Heck, Richard Dawkins is a card carrying.member.of the monster, raving looney party..

 

[shnarkle]

And when it comes to something like God, the threshold is high. He would need to provide outstanding evidence of his existence in order to produce a state of belief in you.

This is an interesting point, in that for some reason there doesn't seem to be any high threshold for belief in existence itself. Yet, when one simply points out that existence is eternal, those who were so eager to entertain evidence of God suddenly vanish from sight. They have no desire to even begin to entertain the possibility that existence is eternal. It is a revolting idea, and one that must be shunned at all costs. This tells me that atheists and skeptics are not just frauds, but cowards as well. They can only run and hide when their god of reason abandons them.

He is far closer and fsr more involved in your everydsy life than you could imagine.

I disagree. it isn't that they can't imagine it, but that they flat out refuse to entertain the idea. It is not something they need to imagine. it is something they can plainly see, yet intentionally refuse to look at.

The state of involvement is incomprehensibly unbearable. All it takes is to imagine God seeing through your eyes, hearing what you say with your own ears, etc. No one wants to think about that for very long if they feel any need to justify their own actions to themselves.

 

[5wize]

I was referring to the discussion to come between myself and Whateverman. Not so much the wrath of God as the wrath of a logical, reasoned approach to discussion on the subject.

Its not the preserve of atheists to be logical and rational. Heck, Richard Dawkins is a card carrying.member.of the monster, raving looney party..

Got it... my bad. I'd be amused to see modern scientific or philosophical rationality applied to what is really just an ancient attempt at explaining the world (i.e. science). Seeing how they mix to create modern rational explanations to the old systems as opposed to supernatural apologetics will be interesting.

 

[5wize]

The standard answer to this you will know. Man created, given dominion over the earth.

Man opted to boot out God, fell, and all he had dominion over fell with him. And so earthquakes, disease, horror - a reflection of what goes on inside of man.

What's the standard response to this?

You mean the atheist response? Man likes explanations for stuff like why is life hard and childbirth so dangerous? Doesn't matter whether the explanation is right or not, just having an answer comforts the mystery as well as the ego. You see this in modern science as well. It's the best science they had at the time... like the Great Turtle or something.

 

[York]

This is an interesting point, in that for some reason there doesn't seem to be any high threshold for belief in existence itself.

Probably because things turn decidedly solipsist when you start digging

Yet, when one simply points out that existence is eternal, those who were so eager to entertain evidence of God suddenly vanish from sight. They have no desire to even begin to entertain the possibility that existence is eternal. It is a revolting idea, and one that must be shunned at all costs. This tells me that atheists and skeptics are not just frauds, but cowards as well. They can only run and hide when their god of reason abandons them.

I'm not sure the objection is to eternal life, I mean there are folk out there cryogenically having their heads frozen to that end.

The problem is the cost. The cost is God. And God means we bow. But to bow would be to get off the throne.

Tell me, whoever stepped of the throne willingly?

I disagree. it isn't that they can't imagine it, but that they flat out refuse to entertain the idea. It is not something they need to imagine. it is something they can plainly see, yet intentionally refuse to look at.

Of course. But that's understandable. If you are born with spiritual DNA bent on directing your own life as you see fit, then anything that threatens that has to be eradicated, suppressed, buried.

They refuse because refusal sustains the supply of a drug called " me on the throne". If you are a Christian, you too will have imbibed this drug. So you ought to know of its allure (indeed you will imbibe of it frequently yourself, notwithstanding your being a Christian).

Have a bit of understanding man!

The state of involvement is incomprehensibly unbearable. All it takes is to imagine God seeing through your eyes, hearing what you say with your own ears, etc. No one wants to think about that for very long if they feel any need to justify their own actions to themselves.

Precisely. The idea that someone can see your selfish, perverse, abusive motivations is a horrible idea..

Because selfishness, perversity and abuse is horrible

 

[5wize]

This is an interesting point, in that for some reason there doesn't seem to be any high threshold for belief in existence itself. Yet, when one simply points out that existence is eternal, those who were so eager to entertain evidence of God suddenly vanish from sight. They have no desire to even begin to entertain the possibility that existence is eternal. It is a revolting idea, and one that must be shunned at all costs. This tells me that atheists and skeptics are not just frauds, but cowards as well. They can only run and hide when their god of reason abandons them.

I disagree. it isn't that they can't imagine it, but that they flat out refuse to entertain the idea. It is not something they need to imagine. it is something they can plainly see, yet intentionally refuse to look at.

The state of involvement is incomprehensibly unbearable. All it takes is to imagine God seeing through your eyes, hearing what you say with your own ears, etc. No one wants to think about that for very long if they feel any need to justify their own actions to themselves.

That's not true. Atheists can conceive of an eternal existence. That says nothing to us about the current temporal universe's manifestation we are experiencing or whether eternal existence implies a disembodied sentient willful being. You somehow have married the 2 concepts without warrant.