Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers (page 14)

funkyderek

Deputy Dog:

How does your lack of depravity explain your "inadequacies"? Assuming you have some.

I don't consider myself depraved or worthless, and my actions attest to this view. That does not mean I am perfect, or that I am everything I would like to be. I have real inadequacies and feelings of inadequacy, but I can't think of anything more horrible than the idea that I don't deserve to live or to be loved, but that there's a super sky daddy who will love me and let me live anyway, as long as I do what he says. I'm not somebody's bitch, and I don't want to be.

I guess that depends on how you see yourself. For me, I see it as being honest with myself first, and with God.

Being honest with myself, I simply don't see myself as a disgusting sinner, worthy to be tortured eternally for the mere fact of my existence. I feel desperately sorry for you that you do see yourself in that way - I think such a viewpoint can only lead to a life being wasted in pursuit of the approval of an imaginary being.

But, different strokes for different folks.

Abaddon

ellderwho

Isn't it funny that Hillary told you to read what he said in context, and described how, and you just quote the entire paragraph with a highlight, deliberatLely ignoring his reaMonable request so asto prove some point?

Perry

I am of God now. He lives inside me by means of the new spirit He put in me. When I read the bible, many times my spirit confirms what is true therefore providing two witnesses.... the word and the spirit. God speaks through both. That is my testimony to you. Millions of others would testify the same to you. I'm not lying.

Yawn. And millions of people of other religious traditions or the same religious tradition as you who believe things that contradict what you believe are just as convinced about the internal validaion they get.

So god has multiple personalities? Or is he dicking with people in India making them think cows are holy? Or you are the right one? I reckon you should have a get together with all the other people who believe they are the right one through internal validation. It would be a blood-bath.

Oh, you mention born again and also say "You can create an illusion of righteousness and justify yourself". Aren't those two things the same? Isn't the idea of 'once saved always saved' the ultimate in moral convenience?

You seem to equate your opinions and beliefs being scutinised with putting god on trial. Don't you feel that is self-idolatry, seeing criticism of your thoughts and opinion as criticism of god?

If I remember correctly you were into Calvanistic-style presuppositionalism last time you came here. That holds that god has already determined the elect, and naturally you were one of them. Now you're born again with a similar form of self-validation. You were a Dubbie, weren't you? Seems you are going through a set of religions that whilst presenting man as worthless are actually egoistical in the extreme by their insistence that their unfounded beliefs (i.e. their opinions) are in line with gods requirements.

What greater vanity can anyone have than claiming to know the mind of god?

Deputy Dog

Enough with the worthless routine. It isn't convincing. To you, maybe... but to me as you are so sure you are right purely on the basis of internal factors you on some levels value the worth of your own reasoning above all else. How can you claim to be worthless when you effectively worship your unprovable opinion?

ellderwho

ellderwho
Isn't it funny that Hillary told you to read what he said in context, and described how, and you just quote the entire paragraph with a highlight, deliberatLely ignoring his reaMonable request so asto prove some point?

Yeah friggin hysterical. He cant answer a question on his own.

Hillary, So just answer the question, or are you so intellectually supeiror... how dare anyone question you.

AuldSoul

DanTheMan: Are you saying that I should just accept your assertions that your morality is from "substantially different Source" without question?

Accept? Not necessarily. That's your choice. Tolerate? Yes. At a minimum. Unless you can (1) prove me wrong or (2) I attempt to compel your acceptance on the strength of my personal experiences.

My assertions need not be proved except in a laboratory. I don't live in a laboratory. I don't work in one, either. You cannot attempt to compel my acceptance of the standards imposed by the scientific method any more than I can attempt to compel your acceptance of the standards imposed by Christ.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

ellderwho

Hillary,

You have taken this statement as if it were a stand-alone comment. It was responsive, not declaritive!!!! As such it was not intended to be taken literally - how embarrassing that this has to be pointed out to you elderwho. Go back and follow my comments and Perry's posts to that point. Perhaps then reason will win out.

Embarassing? Ah, yeah. You do realize you where adressing Deputy Dog. Not Perry. (In the post I quoted you from)

Please enlighten me on these so-called coments leading up to Deputy Dog that I have taken out of context.

bernadette

Zenism

Hillary-step - your comments sound fine to me - passionate but not objectionable - imo

hillary_step

elderwho,

Embarassing? Ah, yeah. You do realize you where adressing Deputy Dog. Not Perry. (In the post I quoted you from)
Please enlighten me on these so-called coments leading up to Deputy Dog that I have taken out of context.

You really are a quite the buffoon.

My comments were directed to Perry, that is why I included his name. You quoted my comments directed at Perry ( whose name was included in my comments ) and you objected to that post, which you quoted. You remember, the post in which I included Perry's name.

Get in now?

Until you bother to read and comprehend posts before you react, consider yourself on the ignore list. I have no time for Board gnats, nor even bored gnats.

HS

Perry

My assertions need not be proved except in a laboratory. I don't live in a laboratory. I don't work in one, either. You cannot attempt to compel my acceptance of the standards imposed by the scientific method any more than I can attempt to compel your acceptance of the standards imposed by Christ.

Good point. Why is it that atheists attempt to apply the scientific method in all the wrong places? I mean what would they find if instead of applying it to something Infinite (and thus pointless) they attempted to apply the same dogged reasoning to things that might actually yield some truth.....like the social engineers, policy makers and commercial marketers/advertisers that make up the pool of knowledge of good and bad that directs them? What would they find if they applied their perfectly functioning and intelligent minds to the problem of why they (myself included) themselves cannot fulfill the moral standards that they set for themselves?

They would be forced to conclude:

(1) The human species cannot know of their own what is good and bad.

(2) Even when they do "know", they cannot do it and thus avoid the hypocrisy of meteing out punishment to others guilty of the same moral lapses.

(3) Freedom is relative, and we will always need a source for moral knowledge.

(4) The sources that we erect are highly subject to manipulation.

(5) We will always be in servitude to the source we choose.

(6) We need Someone with enough authority to pronounce "absolvo" on our behalf and releive us of our guilt.

(7) Even if we are pronounced "not guilty" we need an instrument that can bridge the utilitarian gap between what we choose as good and what we do.

Now some may criticize me for even bringing up such realities. There is a point to be made there. As a parent, do I really want young athesists seeing the ultimate meaninglessness of fallen human existence, disconnecting from their social conditioning, and shooting little girls in the head when they confess Jesus as their Source, as a coouple of young students did at Columbine High School? Heavens no! Peoples' illusions are useful to themselves, their families and their neighbors.

However, when a Christian gives his testimony of regeneration, please don't imagine yourself as somehow morally superior, or intellectually astute when you can't even explain to this board how you can "know" your left hand from your right.

Mad

"The blind guide behind the evolutionary process is natural selection. It doesn't give a shit whether it produces 'benign' creatures or 'evil' ones it simply finds the most effective way of ensuring the survival of the best genes."

daystar

Life is dangerous. Deal with it.

Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers

Share this