An Atheist Speaks

[Mockingbird 0]

I didn't say the beginning HAD to be attibuted to a diety. I said it had to be attributed to a cause. Science may not know what the cause was, but when they close their minds to the most obvious possibility, it damages science's (or rather those who represent science) integrity.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

I JUST SHOWED YOU THAT EVIL WAS NOT AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT, THAT IS OPERATES IN DECEPTION, AND YOU STILL BELIEVE IT IS ABSTRACT??? EXPLAIN.

No you didn't. You stated that you thought evil was an actual thing, you provided no evidence that it was. So what if some bad people think they are good? That does not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that some big bad force must be tricking them. Evil is the name we give to certain actions (or to certain people because of their actions) that contravene our set of morals. It is an abstract concept.

Quote

I ALREADY SAID THAT EVIL BELIEVES IN GOOD. AND WHAT YOU SAID FURTHER PROVES THAT EVIL IS NOT ABSTRACT, THAT IT WORKS ON DECEPTION.

No, it really doesn't. Saying "Evil believes in good" is a nonsensical statement.

Quote

EXPLIN HOW I AM DEVALUING THE WORD? I AM GIVING THE WORD POWER ARENT I?

No, you're not. Most people use the word evil as a fairly strong statement - not just bad, but very bad. If you're saying that absolutely everyone is evil it devalues the word. It takes evil from being extreme to being normal. I gotta tell you, if I am evil, then evil is fine with me, 'cos I happen to think I'm a pretty nice guy.

Quote

BECAUSE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE ARE APART OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSAL BALANCE, GOOD IS FOUND IN EVIL AND IF IT SEES ITS OWN POWER, IT BECOMES STRONGER IN GOOD, LIKE US, A COLLECTIVE ENTITY OF GOOD AND EVIL IN WHICH BOTH EVIL AND GOOD ARE IN A BALANCE. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT JESUS IS THE ULTIMATE GOOD, LOVE WHICH LOVES EVEN EVIL, THEREFORE SHOWING LOVE TO BE GREATER THAN EVEN EVIL. WE HAVE IT SAID THAT WISDOM HAS SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND WITH NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT WITH HIS OWN CREATION. WHO ARE WE TO QUESTION HIS PURPOSE OR WILL? WILL NOT WISDOM, WHICH HOLDS THE BALANCE OF BOTH GOOD AND EVIL DO WHAT IT WANTS? With the intelligent thought comment, I was not using sarcasm, I was simply giving your ear to the possiblilty that you (and i) are evil, and that evil is intelligent and capable of thought. Becuase you said earlier that "there is no invisible entity (of evil)" something like that.

What?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Science and common sense for that matter can easily disprove some of the idiotic, naive, selfish, greedy, unplausable, fucked up scenarios and fables the bible throws at us all.

if you truly believe that this world, solar system, galaxy, universe.... has been created specifically for human beings to use....

...then you are a stupid idiot.

Let's go with that.
Do you really, really believe in the theory of evolution? I mean, really?
Two elements, bumping along through time just happened upon each other, and voila. The rest is history. Let's say it's true.
What makes you think that it hasn't happened somewhere else billions of years before it happened here?
Using your logic, we have to say it's extremely possible.
This extra terrestrial life just happened, by chance, to be created without all of the baggage that we, as humans, carry around. Greed, hate, contempt, you get the picture.
Yet, it had the ability to advance itself techologically far beyond anything we can imagine.
This entity now has the ability to make itself invisible, unmeasurable and full of all of the good qualities.
It has also advanced to the point of being able to create life.
We are trying to do that, right? So it is possible,right?
Now, who's to say we are nothing more than a junior high science project, gone bad, created by one of the entity's children.
You have a choice. You can accept my theory or you have to say we are the only form of life acrost the universe, which leads to problems with the evolutionary theory.

[JackC 0]

Quote

The assertions, however, are neither accurate nor precise w/r/t the experiment and reported results cited.

Could you explian why not?

Quote

The system (i.e., the brain) is neither as simple nor is the specific experiment as ambiguous.

Sorry Marg, I don't understand. As simple or ambiguous as what?


As I see it, the experiment is thought to show that the point at which a concious decision is deemed to have been made, is preceeded by subconcious brain activity some 10 seconds before hand. The authors cite a ~60% success rate for this prediction. This perhaps shows that what people beleive is concious decision is in fact an illusion and that a subconcious one preceeds it.

That's fine but I wonder if simply pushing a button for no apparent reason is something that can in all cases examined, be an activity that will always be performed by the concious mind. In the duration of my life I must have pressed literally millions of buttons, I can press a button without thinking about it. If a particular song comes on my iPod that I don't want to listen to, I can hit skip before I've even conciously registered that it's playing. My concious mind then plays catch up by deciphering what I've just done and registering that it happened.

In fact we know that repetition of a particular process will allow the subconcious mind to take over the motor functions associated with that process, thereby allowing the concious mind to tackle more demanding processes. Button pushing may well fit that profile.

Neither is there any evidence to suggest that the decision made by the subject was anything other than the subject's decision (either subconcious or concious). There is no evidence of an external stimulus that dictates what decision will be made.

So in order for this experiment to cast doubt on the existence of free will, you need to define free will as strictly only those decisions made by the concious mind. Then anything you do without actually having that internal dialogue associated with concious brian activity would have to be predetermined. I think that misses the point of what free will is. I may have automatically skipped that track on my iPod, but I still think it was my decision to do it.

A better test for concious decision making would be whack-a-mole where the subject is presented with some information (a mole poking it's head up), a decision which hole the mole appears in, and then an action to whack it. This would not lead to a 10 second gap between making and registering a decision.

At best, I think all this experiment does is highlight the importance of the subconcious mind in certain types of decision making process, not that free will is in doubt.

I'm no neuroscientist so maybe I've missed the point in which case please feel free to explain my error.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Let's go with that.
Do you really, really believe in the theory of evolution? I mean, really?
Two elements, bumping along through time just happened upon each other, and voila. The rest is history. Let's say it's true.
What makes you think that it hasn't happened somewhere else billions of years before it happened here?
Using your logic, we have to say it's extremely possible.
This extra terrestrial life just happened, by chance, to be created without all of the baggage that we, as humans, carry around. Greed, hate, contempt, you get the picture.
Yet, it had the ability to advance itself techologically far beyond anything we can imagine.
This entity now has the ability to make itself invisible, unmeasurable and full of all of the good qualities.
It has also advanced to the point of being able to create life.
We are trying to do that, right? So it is possible,right?
Now, who's to say we are nothing more than a junior high science project, gone bad, created by one of the entity's children.
You have a choice. You can accept my theory or you have to say we are the only form of life acrost the universe, which leads to problems with the evolutionary theory.

What? Why do we have to say we are the only form of life? Your either or scenario makes no sense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

I didn't say the beginning HAD to be attibuted to a diety. I said it had to be attributed to a cause. Science may not know what the cause was, but when they close their minds to the most obvious possibility, it damages science's (or rather those who represent science) integrity.

I don't think anyone dismisses the most obvious possibility. They just dismiss the absurd ones, like invisible omnipotent omniscient supernatural beings for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER exists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

I didn't say the beginning HAD to be attibuted to a diety. I said it had to be attributed to a cause. Science may not know what the cause was, but when they close their minds to the most obvious possibility, it damages science's (or rather those who represent science) integrity.

How does it damage science if scientist discount the theory of a creator, because thus so far no evidence exist to support a creator theory??

and dare I ask how is your god/creator theory the "most obvious possibility"??

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I didn't say the beginning HAD to be attibuted to a diety. I said it had to be attributed to a cause. Science may not know what the cause was, but when they close their minds to the most obvious possibility, it damages science's (or rather those who represent science) integrity.

Please enlighten us as to what the "most obvious possibility" is.

If the universe cycles, then the cycle is the cause of the beginning of the universe as we know it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Let's go with that.
Do you really, really believe in the theory of evolution? I mean, really?
Two elements, bumping along through time just happened upon each other, and voila. The rest is history. Let's say it's true.
What makes you think that it hasn't happened somewhere else billions of years before it happened here?
Using your logic, we have to say it's extremely possible.
This extra terrestrial life just happened, by chance, to be created without all of the baggage that we, as humans, carry around. Greed, hate, contempt, you get the picture.
Yet, it had the ability to advance itself techologically far beyond anything we can imagine.
This entity now has the ability to make itself invisible, unmeasurable and full of all of the good qualities.
It has also advanced to the point of being able to create life.
We are trying to do that, right? So it is possible,right?
Now, who's to say we are nothing more than a junior high science project, gone bad, created by one of the entity's children.
You have a choice. You can accept my theory or you have to say we are the only form of life acrost the universe, which leads to problems with the evolutionary theory.

You make far too many assumptions to suggest your "theory" (it's certainly not a theory, or even a hypothesis, in any scientific sense) is the only alternative to being the only form of life in the universe.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

At best, I think all this experiment does is highlight the importance of the subconcious mind in certain types of decision making process, not that free will is in doubt.

I'm no neuroscientist so maybe I've missed the point in which case please feel free to explain my error.

Do you have experimental evidence of the existence of free will, or are you basing you conclusions on an assumption of its existence?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JackC 0]

Quote

Do you have experimental evidence of the existence of free will, or are you basing you conclusions on an assumption of its existence?

That completely depends on your definition of free will.

You could define the abstract notion of free will as:
free will exists if decisions are made (in response to external input) that are neither externally determined nor random and are not consequences of the laws of physics.

Then there is the phenomenon of free will which could be defined as:
free will is displayed if the decision making appears to satisfy the abstract definition of free will.

In the phenomenological sense, free will is observable by simply looking out of the window. In the abstract sense, free will is much harder to pin down. Now if you could model the phenomenological free will, you'd never be able to satisfactorily prove the existence of the abstract free will.

In philosophy, views on free will are lumped into three camps.

1) Libertarian. Adherants to the abstract definition.

2) Compatibilist. Believers in the phenomenological definition as dictated by the laws of physics.

3) Determinist. Believe that the decision making processes is governed strictly by physical laws.

The religious maybe find themselves in camp number 1, I suppose I'd be in camp number 2 and I'm guessing you're in camp number 3.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you have experimental evidence of the existence of free will, or are you basing you conclusions on an assumption of its existence?

That completely depends on your definition of free will.

You could define the abstract notion of free will as:
free will exists if decisions are made (in response to external input) that are neither externally determined nor random and are not consequences of the laws of physics.

What comprises external determination? External to what?

How are you defining random? (Whether anything can even be totally random is a topic worthy of its own lengthy discussion.)

Quote

Then there is the phenomenon of free will which could be defined as:
free will is displayed if the decision making appears to satisfy the abstract definition of free will.

What do you mean by "appears to satisfy"? Does there need to be objective quantifiable evidence, or will a qualitative feeling suffice?

Quote

In the phenomenological sense, free will is observable by simply looking out of the window. In the abstract sense, free will is much harder to pin down. Now if you could model the phenomenological free will, you'd never be able to satisfactorily prove the existence of the abstract free will.

I'm not sure I follow you here. By your definition, the existence of phenomenological free will would imply abstract free will, since the properties of phenomenological free will are necessary conditions of abstract free will. In fact, by your definitions, there doesn't seem to be any significant differences between phenomenological free will and abstract free will.

At any rate, you seem to be arguing for the existence of free will based on assumptions of its existence, and not based on quantitative evidence. While the experiments to which nerdgirl linked do not definitively prove that free will does not exist, they do offer credible evidence to justify scientific consideration of the possibility that free will doesn't exist.

BTW, did you ever come up with an explanation of how the universe's total energy increased between time_zero of the universe (singularity) and some arbitrary time_x (x > 0) prior to the formation of mass to support your assertion that the Uncertainty Principle held true during that period?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,471]

> What makes you think that it hasn't happened somewhere else billions
> of years before it happened here?

It may have.

>This extra terrestrial life just happened, by chance, to be created without
>all of the baggage that we, as humans, carry around. Greed, hate,
>contempt, you get the picture.

Or that life is not intelligent enough to experience contempt. Or they are intelligent and are even worse than we are.

>Yet, it had the ability to advance itself techologically far beyond anything
>we can imagine.

Or they evolved on a world with few metals and never even got to the bronze age. Or they never evolved intelligence. Or they killed themselves off in one of the many ways we have contemplated.

>We are trying to do that, right? So it is possible,right?

Sure.

>Now, who's to say we are nothing more than a junior high science project,
>gone bad, created by one of the entity's children.

Again, that may have happened. Heck, we may all exist in a Matrix-like construction by those same entities. There is zero evidence of it, though.

>You can accept my theory or you have to say we are the only form of
>life acrost the universe, which leads to problems with the evolutionary
>theory.

?? Your theory has zero evidence of its validity. It is a thought experiment, nothing more. Evolution has mountains of evidence.

[JackC 0]

Quote

What comprises external determination? External to what?

External to the entity displaying free will.

Quote

How are you defining random? (Whether anything can even be totally random is a topic worthy of its own lengthy discussion.)

Random, as in not predictably ordered.

Quote

What do you mean by "appears to satisfy"? Does there need to be objective quantifiable evidence, or will a qualitative feeling suffice?

Appears to satisfy as in qualitively resembles...

Look, if I have to define every word for you this is going to be a looong conversation. I don't really have the time or the inclination to do that, it's not like we're going to get anywhere with this discussion.

Quote

I'm not sure I follow you here. By your definition, the existence of phenomenological free will would imply abstract free will, since the properties of phenomenological free will are necessary conditions of abstract free will. In fact, by your definitions, there doesn't seem to be any significant differences between phenomenological free will and abstract free will.

Not really, you could (in principle) write a computer program that fakes (appears to display) free will. That isn't abstract free will since the program would have to conform to certain known rules, but it would have the appearence of free will and that would be good enough to satisfy phenomenological free will. If you could fake phenomenological free will, there would always be doubt in the existence of abstract free will, since it could have been faked.

Quote

At any rate, you seem to be arguing for the existence of free will based on assumptions of its existence, and not based on quantitative evidence.

I think there is evidence of phenomenological free will. For example this paper points to a significant value in believing that free will exists. But if you really want to go there, you can't conclusively prove anything at all, ever, which is probably what you are trying to beat me over the head with.

Quote

While the experiments to which nerdgirl linked do not definitively prove that free will does not exist, they do offer credible evidence to justify scientific consideration of the possibility that free will doesn't exist.

I don't think they do, at least unless you define free will as having to be only those decisions made by a concious internal dialogue. I've explained my thought on this already, at length.

Quote

BTW, did you ever come up with an explanation of how the universe's total energy increased between time_zero of the universe (singularity) and some arbitrary time_x (x > 0) prior to the formation of mass to support your assertion that the Uncertainty Principle held true during that period?

Why did the universe's total energy have to increase imediately after the big bang? There's no evidence to suggest anything of the sort and what has it got to do with the uncertainty principle holding (or not) at t=0?

I don't have the time to get into a discussion on both free will and big bang cosmology. There are numerous publications on both topics, you'd get better results reading them that trying to nail me to the wall in here.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

You people are awsome! I just love skydivers! Passion, personality, delightfulness! All pretty much what I would consider to be good, exciting, and fun people. No one is being judged, were really not even challenging, we're simply blending our personalities and our beliefs into one little community that the majority of the world may never understand. I havent been in skydiving long, but I have been blessed enough to jump in Austrailia, Switzerland, and several dzs in the us, and the people I meet skydiving are the absolute greatest. I know the detriment of the ego, but still, my comment still stands about this community being the greatest.

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think there is evidence of phenomenological free will. For example this paper points to a significant value in believing that free will exists.

I don't remember claiming otherwise. The qualitative perception of free will is important, imo. The paper to which you linked supports that opinion.

Quote

But if you really want to go there, you can't conclusively prove anything at all, ever, which is probably what you are trying to beat me over the head with.

I'm trying to do no such thing. I was simply hoping you would be able to support your assertions.

Quote

I don't think they do, at least unless you define free will as having to be only those decisions made by a concious internal dialogue. I've explained my thought on this already, at length.

I disagree with your conclusion, and do not feel it is has been justified.

Quote

Why did the universe's total energy have to increase imediately after the big bang? There's no evidence to suggest anything of the sort and what has it got to do with the uncertainty principle holding (or not) at t=0?

The Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical relation which seems to be nonsensical in the earliest stages of the universe, particularly at t=0.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rynodigsmusic 0]

No you didn't. You stated that you thought evil was an actual thing, you provided no evidence that it was.

Sorry about the caps thing. But again. Deception is not abstract and it is how evil operates. If you dont understand that, then your thinking is not set on listening to truth, but is fashioned completely against me. If you consider the balance for a moment of good and evil then you would understand that something is balancing it. I believe it is the spirit of wisdom itself, God.

The same wisdom that science has proven over and over again to be smarter than us. Gravity, a purpose, oxygen, a purpose, carbon dioxide, a purpose, the perfectly self sustaining balance of nature, a purpose, the ocean, a purpose, the rotation of the earth, a purpose, polar ice caps, a purpose, natural disasters, a purpose, fire, rain, even tragedy. I mean the evidence of wisdom is all around us, yet mans pride wants to believe they have the true wisdom, when all they do, and all they will ever do is prove what has already had a purpose.

Mankind has a knowledge of good and evil, yes? That means that the balance is within us, yes? And we have the will to choose what side of the balance to be on, yes? So wisdom, which clearly gave purpose to everything (except maybe the mosquito) also gave purpose to us. If we look at the earth as a place to sustain the balance of good and evil in the universes, even in eternity, a place where life lets these two forces breed, then within us we have been given a small scale of what wisdom does. If wisdom balances good and evil collectively in a dimension of time and space that is only known to us and seen by us, then clearly we see that we are made in wisdoms image.

Those who choose evil have a purpose, and also that those who choose good have a purpose. What I was saying before your "what" reply is that when something is evil finds the power of good, it inspires a feeling of goodness that illumintes lives and inspires with its testimony. Without going deeper on you, think Scrooge, from the Christmas carol, think redeemed criminal ect... You cannot deny that the glory in the power of good is revealed when evil becomes good. Now you can say the same is true for good becoming evil, and now deception is revealed, good cannot become evil, because good is greater, not because of anything but the balance says so. If the balance within you believes that evil is greater, then in that spirit you will follow, and in that spirit you will stay.

The majority of humans want to believe that they are good, and that is fantastic, it means they are truthful, but, the balance says that can only be so if you see your evil and walk away from it, revealing the glory of good through the power of love. Otherwise you live in a lie and the power is a deception that you cannot see.

You all are tying to disprove God, we are trying to show you who he is. We are not trying to convince ourselves he is real, we have faith, hope, and love for that, we are only trying to show you who he is and that Jesus is the only reason we even know. I am redeemed my freinds, redeemed, I was like many of you, with questions, with almost no faith, (I say almost because I always kept the possiblity open). I was not afraid to fear and I let fear work in me and it led me to trust. Many of the redeemed have very powerful testimonies if you would simply believe in even the possiblity, or at least read a gospel, one that you can understand, I mean, I read the NIV book of John and it floored me. Changed my life in ways I never thought possible. I feel I must at least share that with you.

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You all are tying to disprove God …

Incorrect. We are pointing out that there is no evidence of God (assuming a typical definition of god). There is a huge difference.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,471]

>You all are tying to disprove God, we are trying to show you who he is.

I don't see anyone trying to "disprove" God. You can no sooner prove he does not exist than prove he does exist.

>Many of the redeemed have very powerful testimonies . . .

So do many atheists. There is nothing at all wrong with the path you have chosen - just realize that not everyone chooses the same path, and the fact that they walk a different path does not make them wrong, just different.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

You all are tying to disprove God …

-----------------------------------------------------

Please forgive me, I was careless with that comment. I dont know what I was thinking, again very sorry for that.

"We didn't start the fire"

• Quote

[rynodigsmusic 0]

>So do many atheists. There is nothing at all wrong with the path you have chosen - just realize that not everyone chooses the same path, and the fact that they walk a different path does not make them wrong, just different.

[billvon 2,471]

>I dont undertand how an atheists testimony would be a testimony to the power of faith.

It is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roads; only a few of them go through Jesus.

And again, there is nothing wrong with that path, just as there is nothing wrong with the path others have chosen.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

>I dont undertand how an atheists testimony would be a testimony to the power of faith.

It is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roads; only a few of them go through Jesus.

And again, there is nothing wrong with that path, just as there is nothing wrong with the path others have chosen.

This is interesting. This is very much like a conversation amongst believers. Forgive me Bill, you sound like a believer? Or at least you are a spiritual man? So it almost sounds like we are getting into a form of apologetics, and you will need to find deep peace within you so that you dont discredit everything I have said, by discrediting one thing, find a balance in me, I have compassion, I am not judgemental, and I do not know everything, in fact it is because I claim to know absolutely nothing that was the first step to knowing anything at all. I am not a pride seeker, or on an ego trip. This is my heart, so forgive me it you disagree with it, believe it or not, it is done out of care...but...

In Christ, I believe everything he said. I found what I was looking for in him, so you see, I cant nor would I deny his truth. Many believe that enlightenment can be found outside of Jesus, and you would be right, but I am not only looking for enlightenment through wisdom, but power through the heart of that wisdom. See, in Christ I believe that there is eternity in Heaven or Hell and that the only way to Heaven is through the truth and grace of Jesus, because he said so. I dont want to believe that, but I have to because of how much I have been given through Jesus...this is hard. I want to believe that everyone will find heaven, but again, I cant.

So while I belive that no ones purpose is wrong, I cant say that no ones religion is wrong can I? In good faith, can I, believing Jesus to be the only way, believe that bhudda, or muhammed, or ghandi, or any other spiritual teacher is also the way? Please forgive me, but you do see why I cant believe that other religions are right? Because only Jesus died for my sins, only Jesus took the cross.

This is a thread on atheists, not apologetics I know, but I wanted to you to be able to hopefully understand why I cant say that there is any other way besides Jesus. If you want to talk about this some more I understand completely. Please understand that I am not a biggot, I am a man who cannot turn away from the truth I found in Jesus, if that makes me a biggot, then I am truly sorry, but I will still dedicate my life to being and sharing the love I found in him.

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 2,471]

> I cant say that no ones religion is wrong can I?

Well, you can say whatever you like. Personally, I believe that the path one takes through life is what matters. The person who gave you directions isn't as important, as long as he gives you good directions, and as long as you make your way down the right road. Faith without works is a dead faith - and it is what we do that makes us Christians (or Buddhists, or Jews) not whose statue we pray to.

The Bible contains contradictions. I believe that we should not discard it just because it doesn't always agree with itself - just as we should not discard other religions because they do not agree with what we consider dogma.

>Because only Jesus died for my sins, only Jesus took the cross.

A great many people have died for their religion over the years, and have done a host of other selfless things for their followers. I hope the goriness of their death is not the deciding factor in their divinity, because far more people died far worse deaths for their beliefs.

Instead, I think that we should judge religion on how it helps people choose a moral path through life rather than what sort of hat church leaders wear. Christianity does that for me. Islam does that for others, and Buddhism does that for yet other people. I am no better/more enlightened/smarter than them when it comes to religion, and I am not so arrogant as to assume I understand God better than Muslim or Jewish scholars. Rather, I assume that I simply see a different aspect of the same whole that they (and you) see.

>I believe that there is eternity in Heaven or Hell and that the only way
>to Heaven is through the truth and grace of Jesus, because he said so.

Well, but that's not enough for some religions. In some sects of Christanity, belonging to the wrong splinter group means that you're not getting into heaven no matter what you believe about Christ.

Personally, I think that's silly. It would be silly to claim that you're not getting into heaven because you don't believe the Pope is your spiritual leader, or because you refer to Christ as Allah al-ibn.

Like I said, you can choose any path you like; just consider that others may have found a path as valid for them as yours is to you.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

I dont undertand how an atheists testimony would be a testimony to the power of faith.

Quote

It is a testament to the power of the human spirit. You can come to enlightenment by many roads; only a few of them go through Jesus.

And again, there is nothing wrong with that path, just as there is nothing wrong with the path others have chosen.

This is illogical. But then relativism always is. How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other (as to how salvation, or whatever, is attained)... which they most certainly do?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

• Quote