Relationship with god?

596 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sir Random's picture
"But I say, has already been

"But I say, has already been identified in the Bible."

No credibility in the bible. Next!

And I must say, Hawk Flint has more credibility than you.

ætherborn98's picture
"And I must say, Hawk Flint

"And I must say, Hawk Flint has more credibility than you." that a compliment?

To answer the question that Mykcob asked, the evidence of a relationship with G-d is obedience to His commands: To love G-d with all your heart mind body and soul. The second command is to love your neighbors.

Sir Random's picture
" that a compliment?"

" that a compliment?"

Yes. You tend to be far more reasonable than Gabriel, which is a trait that contributes considerably to ones credibility.

girrod's picture
Haha! This is a joke! Hawk

Haha! This is a joke! Hawk Flint says that he believes God continues to speak to people today, which he has no falsifiable proof, nor Scripture backing, but mere testimony and assertions, and you say he is more reasonable than me.

Sir Random's picture
At least he doesn't go around

At least he doesn't go around......wait, why am I here? You've already been classified ASA mafman who wants nothing more than to hear his own voice. Your time of gaining attention on the site is gone, Gabriel. Leave us!

girrod's picture
Hey Tieler! I believe that

Hey Tieler! I believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within me and moves me to speak and live. I also believe in ghosts that haunt people's souls. I believe in demon possession because I heard from a distant cousin of mine who then heard it from a distant relative of his that they saw a demon inside a person. I believe that Christ appears on toast and tree bark and that we're to worship it.

algebe's picture
"Organic matter is what has

"Organic matter is what has been created."

So you're redefining "organic matter" as meaning everything in the universe, including hydrogen, helium, metals, dark matter? Ok. And you claim that this matter is programmed to sustain life. Most of the universe is actually inhospitable to life. Various space telescopes and the SETI program have been searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life for years. The best evidence so far is that life is either absent or extremely rare. Based on what you say about this "mind" creating matter to sustain life, I would expect the universe to be crawling with life. Why is it so rare?

girrod's picture
Definitions Algebe,

Definitions Algebe, definitions! The word "organic" has a variety of meanings and one of those is "denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary part of the whole" (e.g., "the organic unity of the integral work of art"; synonyms include: structured, organized, coherent, integrated, coordinated, ordered, harmonious, etc.). Hence, "organic matter" is not being redefined, but in the context of what I was referring to, matter (particles) which denotes a relation between other parts, which fit harmoniously with each other. Yes, this would include "everything in the universe." Everything in the universe works seamlessly together.

The word "life" has a variety of meanings, but one of those definitions is "animation and energy in action or expression." Yes, according to quantum physics, "all particles" (matter) are moved by a field (cf. Quantum Field Theory), which suggests that Someone or Something is moving it; hence, all particles in this context are living (animation in action or expression). So, the entire universe is crawling with life according to this context. Are you referring to "life" as water, animals, insects, and human beings? If so.....

Your comment about "most of the universe is inhospitable to life" is naive. First, we don't have the technology to identify whether life does or doesn't exist in "most of the universe." And second, what does finding what you identify as life somewhere else going to change in our discussion? We are still going to wrestle with the same thoughts and ideas. Where did that life come from? Nothing changes.

I suspect that my "eternal mind" argument is hard to deal with, because it does make perfect sense. Even if "life" was found elsewhere, it wouldn't negate my argument, but strengthen it. You need mind for something to exist, because mind is behind all things. Mind is what controls and animates the body, yet something so elementary as this to understand, is being substituted by a mindless matter argument. Matter just "knows" what to do and how to do to create life.

Sir Random's picture
"Mind is what controls and

"Mind is what controls and animates the body, "

Im pretty sure nural impulses and chemicals do that.

girrod's picture
So I guess men that rape

So I guess men that rape women and little girls couldn't help themselves because their bodies were just being led my neural impulses and chemicals?

Sir Random's picture
Brain damage can lead to

Brain damage can lead to chemical and neural receptors behaving in a different way than the norm. So to, can genetic diseases. Schizophrenia is often cause by recepters for a certain group of chemicals being damaged or malformed. Depression can be caused when there is an imbalance in the number of receptors for specific chemicals.

Please, read my response to your other post below.

girrod's picture
You make no sense. I stated

You make no sense. I stated that mind controls the body and then you said no, chemical and electrical impulses control the body. Then I said, if that is the case then rape is nothing more than being led by chemical and electrical impulses, to which you replied brain damage. Dude, did you catch your jump from chemical and electrical impulses to "behavior"? If we are merely just chemical and electrical then why should there be a "normal behavior"? After all we're just animals that need to satisfy our material urges. But know you want to advocate for normal (moral) behavior, which begs the question, why would we have any "normal" behavior if we're just chemical and electrical outputs? Why would there be any depression? And what is depression?

Sir Random's picture
"You make no sense."

"You make no sense."

Try harder.

"Dude, did you catch your jump from chemical and electrical impulses to "behavior""

Damage to the receptors of impulses and chemicals can cause abnormalities in ones brain function, thereby affecting "behavior". If you can't see that connection, you need a new set of eyeballs.

"If we are merely just chemical and electrical then why should there be a "normal behavior"? "

Morality is fluid, and is determined by the current state of society at a moment in time.

"And what is depression?"

Depression is a state of continues sadness caused by an imbalance between dopamine inhibitors and receptors. Can also be caused by outside factors.

girrod's picture
You said that we are merely

You said that we are merely chemical and electrical impulses, but now you want to advocate for some type of morality. You are the one that is out of sync with reason. And if you want to talk about morality and how it is determined by the current state of society, then if humans wanted to have sex with animals or babies and society was alright with it, then according to your logic, it must be accepted. Of yeah, because we are just chemical and electrical forces at work.

Sir Random's picture
"some type of morality."

"some type of morality."

I'm not advocating squat. I'm telling you how it is.

"then if humans wanted to have sex with animals or babies and society was alright with it, then according to your logic, it must be accepted"

Believe it or not, there are very few laws against exactly that.

"because we are just chemical and electrical forces at work."

Yep. Nothing special here.

girrod's picture
Your reasoning is flawed. If

Your reasoning is flawed. If we are just chemical and electrical forces at work, then morality and any type of behavior is pointless in your reality. In other words, you can do whatever you want and raping kids shouldn't present a problem to you in your description of human beings. There is no morality or behavior with what you are advocating, so quit trying to defend some type of behavior.

Deforres's picture
Damnit, I thought we were rid

Damnit, I thought we were rid of you.

algebe's picture
So you see the complex

So you see the complex interaction of forces and matter in the universe as evidence of mind? Mind is complex. Matter is complex. Therefore matter = mind. Is that it?

That sounds like an association fallacy to me. All dogs have four legs. This elephant has four legs. Therefore this elephant is a dog.

girrod's picture
Yes, there is complex

Yes, there is complex interaction in our universe, but I never stated that "force and matter" were the same; you are making this claim. The evidences of matter suggest complexity, order, synergy, and fine-tuning properties; all of which, to my knowledge and experience in this present world are due to mental functions (mind). Mind is the only proven entity capable of giving us such properties. If not, then please answer my questions: (1) What, other than mind gives us these properties? (2) You have to be able to logically prove that "organic matter", which spontaneously appeared, innately possessed the properties listed? (3) Does organic matter have a mind? (4) Is organic matter conscious?

Conclusion: Matter is complex and the only entity capable of giving matter its complexity is mind. Mind doesn't equal matter, because I've mentioned that mind is immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal. Mind gave rise to matter and its properties. There is no association fallacy here. Live by this maxim from Stephen Covey: "Most people don't listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply."

algebe's picture
"Live by this maxim from

"Live by this maxim from Stephen Covey: "Most people don't listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply."

Look who's talking. You obviously didn't read my post properly. I never accused you of stating that force and matter were the same. What I suggested was that you were equating complexity with mind. As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have to support that view is that you can't think of any other explanation for the complexity we see in the universe.

girrod's picture
I see you didn't answer any

I see you didn't answer any of my questions. As always you want to attack my position without offering anything in return. Yes, the only evidence (that fits with our reality) is, complexity comes from intelligence. It seems to me that you are suggesting that something else could be responsible for complexity, so what is it? What, according to logic, reason, common sense, and experience, is able to give us complexity other than mind (intellect)? And as I have mentioned to others, seems funny to me that "intelligent" men, whose brains were crafted in an orderly way, giving rise to consciousness, thought, and intelligence, are trying to discredit the only sane and logical premise consistent with reality. Now that's funny!

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Gabriel

@ Gabriel

( Answer to to your previous post: )

- "It's funny that you make a big deal of this phrase, but have not answered any of my questions. What this means is, you harp on the minor points to avoid speaking on the bigger issues presented to you, which evidentially, you have nothing to offer."

This is just an immature and childish attempt at trying to trigger anger to get what you want. Such comments only reveal your nature and you are making a mockery of yourself.

To explain this conundrum for you:
I offer nothing for you but questions, because there is absolutely no point in telling you that I believe in The Big Bang Theory because it is the most proven theory, that I am very confident in The Theory of Evolution because it has such a massive amount of supporting evidence that it would be laughable to deny it (unless one is completely unaware about the evidence), that I believe that the most plausible answer to how life began is Abiogenesis because even if it's still somewhat lacking in evidence there is nothing even close to being a more likely explanation, that regarding the questions "what caused the Big Bang" or "what was before the Big Bang", the answer is simply: I don't know, I'm not even sure those are valid questions.

So why do I say "there is absolutely no point in telling you" this?
I have already tried (as have many others) and you have shown again and again that even though the the evidence is readily available, you are either unaware of it or choose to ignore it from a desperate urge to believe in magic and unjustified claims. I don't think for a second that you are going to debate fairly or listen to valid argumentation, you have proven that in abundance already, plus taxes.

Your assertions are so full of holes that I get embarrassed for you when I read them. These holes have been pointed out to you over and over again, but you just look away and claim to "find no resistance". It's like talking to a stubborn child who decided to not give in, no matter what anyone says or how ridiculous it looks.

You have clearly shown that there can be no productive debate with you about these things, so instead I have been offering only question about your assertions. And your unwillingness to discuss them is very telling how baseless your assumptions are.

Have you noticed how I am more or less the only one still replying to you?
Everyone else have already realized that trying to debate with you is a complete and utter waste of time. You would never ever accept anything that would change your mind so there can be no honest debate. I'm the only one stupid and naive enough to have carried on this far.

Your are still (!!!) absurdly enough, trying to dictate what others must say to debate you and you are still (!!!) demanding evidence but giving none yourself. It's so obvious how you are trying to force the discussion to get what you want, that again, I get embarrassed for you when reading stuff like this:

- "If you're going to say that my conclusion is "simply erroneous" that a mind can't be responsible for every organized, synergistic, and fine-tuning project in our world, then (for the millionth time), give an alternative. Don't just say..."

BTW: This was a Straw-man argument, I would never say "a mind can't be responsible for every organized, synergistic, and fine-tuning project in our world". You just see what you want to see, then spew out your pre-programmed remarks that are only based on what you want to see. It's only further proof of the futility of debating with you.

You show no shame or integrity what so ever. There is no point in wasting a second more on trying to have a productive discussion with someone who wants to decide what others must say, what one is "force to accept", what the conclusions must be and even what other the other part has said.

girrod's picture
Wow! What a rant!

Wow! What a rant!

Pragmatic, I've identified something about you. When strong arguments are presented that you can't handle, offering another argument of worthy of consideration, you retreat into a dissertation of nothingness and spew ad hominem attacks to placate your base. In other words, you ramble with great sophistry to hide your deficiencies. You present yourself as a thinker by asking questions, but this belies your attempt to really know and understand the truth of things.

There is no conundrum here. I know you believe in Big Bang and Evolution cosmology. That's why I am here to challenge those views with logic and reason. Why? Because as I noted a long time ago, no one was there in the beginning of time. Everyone is working from the known to the unknown. We all are attempting to present logical and reasonable deductions from what we know. The "massive amounts of evidence" that you claim support your ideas are all assumptions, not fasifiable. In other words, you are relying on the opinions of men as to what they think happened in the beginning. And since you have already discarded the idea of God, then naturally you are going to gravitate toward the ideas of eternal matter being our god (creator). Now you make the claim that the most plausible explanation of creation is Abiogenesis, but what are your arguments to make this claim? What leads you to believe that life arose spontaneously from non-life? What is even non-life? Help me to understand logically how this happens? And as I mentioned a time ago, the way you seem to handle this is by saying, "I don't know! We don't have enough data yet." But that has been my whole point with you. If you don't know, then why with such great ferocity have your entered this discussion and quickly condemn my argument? Seems to me, you should be quiet and suspend judgment until you have all the data available to you.

And with regards to everyone who has shown me (again and again) "readily available evidence" that I have and chose to ignore is laughable. No one has presented any type of "evidence" (because none can be given on this subject - no one was there in the beginning), but they have attempted to give arguments, which I've considered and find illogical. Such as, we may have come from a multi-verse, eternal matter, aliens, etc. which doesn't finalize anything, but creates more questions. And I take exception to your comment that I believe in "magic and presented unjustified claims." No where on this post have I advocated for magic and my claims have been a logical and reasonable deduction. And no one has given me a valid argument concerning cosmology.

You claim my arguments are "full of holes" but haven't disproven this at all. Show me where my "eternal mind" argument is illogical and full of holes.

And the reason why everyone doesn't want to engage me is because out of all the insane and weird religious people you all encounter, I am the one that can't be made fun of, rather my strong arguments are just too much too handle.

And I am not attempting to dictate to people what to believe, rather I am using strong reasoning to guide people what is factual and acceptable in reality. I've asked you several questions, which you have yet to answer: How does organic matter have the wherewithal to know how to organize itself in an orderly manner? How does organic matter create consciousness? How does organic matter know know how to work intelligently? Explain... I'm still waiting.

Sir Random's picture
The "Consciousness" to which

The "Consciousness" to which you refer is really just neuro-elcectric impulses inducing a state of thinking. These impulses allow for the moment of information through the brain, and are the core of its operation. The instant these impulses stop, thinking, breathing, seeing, felling, all stops. Without neuron electronic impulses, the human "mind" would be dead.
Hence, their is no true cosiousness in the way a spiritual person may take it. All thought, all action, all emotion, is conducted through neuro electric impulses and chemical reactions.

Memories too, are simply bits of information recorded using chemical "writing" into a neuron of the brain.

girrod's picture
Wow! Here comes the illogical

Wow! Here comes the illogical talking points of materialists. If consciousness is merely neuro-electrical as you claim, because you are the authority in neurochemistry, then please explain why hundreds of cognitive scientists disagree with you and say we can't explain the hard problem of consciousness with purely chemical and electrical impulses. Also, if our brains are merely chemical and electrical impulses, then please explain neuroplasticity, the phenomena where mind can reshape the physical properties of the brain. Also, please explain how chemical and electrical impulses give rise to emotion and experience.

Sir Random's picture
Here's the thing. You have

Here's the thing: You have hundreds, I have thousands. Majority rules.

That, and you just committed an Apeal to Authority.

Beyond that, I've been reading up on and studying neuroscience and biology for a few years now. And I'm 99% certain what I've told you is considered fact by about 97% of the worlds top neuroscientists and biologists.

girrod's picture
What a contradiction you are,

What a contradiction you are, appeal to authority? I just showed that your statement wasn't accurate, because there are many neuroscientists who are still perplexed and puzzled by the hard problem of consciousness. And your appeal to "'I've been reading and studying......for a few years now" makes you the final authority on this matter? Haha! And your "99% and 97%" figures mean nothing when you said "I'm certain" meaning your guessing. Contradictions everywhere! And if you've studied this for more than a few years now, I see how you answered my questions that I posed to you. Oh, didn't answer, Mr. PhD.

Sir Random's picture
Good thing I'm just giving

Good thing I'm just giving you the ring around until someone else arrives then, isint it. And I'm sorry if my short 16 years on this earth hadent given me enough time to fully prepare knowledge on the subject, "professor".

P.s: try checking peoples profiles (by clicking on their names) to get an idea of who you are talking to.

girrod's picture
What does your age have to do

What does your age have to do with anything? You brought it up not me. Age has nothing to do with sound and rational arguments. I deal with arguments, not a person's age. You entered this discussion, so be prepared to give rational arguments. If your going to claim something then be prepared to discuss cogently and answer questions.

Sir Random's picture
Apparently you missed the

Apparently you missed the "just keeping you occupied" part.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.