The Trinity (but not how you see it.)

[Mendalla]

That is a good thing because religions with their doctrines and tenets are evil establishments. you only have to hear or read some of the things they profess, to know that.

I think this where we need to draw the line between organized religion, which is a human institution and as prone to failure as any other human institution, and individual belief and spiritual expression. I would also suggest that tarring all organized religion with the same brush is unfair to the many religions that don't fit that description. Even within Christianity, I don't think it fair to call all denominations/organizations evil, even if problematic ideas and practices are found even in those that I don't regard as "evil". The institution being evil or, more to my thinking, corrupted by evil does not invalidate individual faith and spiritual expression. One can have faith in God and even Jesus without being part of the corruption (well, unless one regards the whole existence of a faith based on Jesus as corruption of Jesus' intent, which some certainly do believe).

 

[Pavlos Maros]

By hearing or reading only some of the things they profess I could not grasp the whole of their intentions toward evil or good. Actions speak louder than words, towards an overall experience of knowing, IMO.

Exactly hence why I called them evil.
There may be some more moderate denominations of Christianity as Mendala stated, however, if they are following the same book then I doubt they are that different. The same applies to Islamic denominations and their Qu'ran or any other major religion. If there were a Christian or Islamic denomination etc.
Those who have put aside their holy book and become a better group for it then I think you can say they aren't necessarily evil. But I've never come across a denomination like that.

 

[jimkenney12]

All human institutions can be described as shared illusions or collective sets of relationships which exist in our minds and can be represented by physical objects such as buildings, physical currency, and books. Christianity and other major religions are collections of communities, each of which shares an illusion that is seen by others. The sharing of an illusion makes it effective.

Some illusions work better than others. They are complicated by myths, stereotypes, and lies attached to those illusions.

For example, a stereotype for religions is the leadership depends on the use of fear to control their members. This is true for some religions but not all religions.

There are other kinds of illusions. One that is embedded in our speech is that the sun orbits around the earth.

A frequently annoying illusion is that held by someone who has studied some psychology and proceeds to believe they are experts in psychology. I first heard about this in the early 70s when I was teaching in a northern college.

There are many men who believe they are god,'s gift to women and annoy or harass women.

A myth established in science in the 1800s was that the normal laws of physics apply to all physical matter. It got shattered in the early 1900s with the development of quantum physics. The JWT is challenging those laws on the galactic level now.

Truth is elusive. Successful living includes living with many possibilities and probabilities.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Here's another collective illusion that we make just as dangerous decisions about: love. What is love? You can't prove it beyond subjectively, but it defines much or our lives.

 

[Mystic]

Here's another collective illusion that we make just as dangerous decisions about: love. What is love? You can't prove it beyond subjectively, but it defines much or our lives.

Yes, and most of what we feel we know in ordinary day to day life is either subjective or unprovable in this way. So why do atheists draw a red line at the unprovable existence of God?

 

[Mendalla]

So why do atheists draw a red line at the unprovable existence of God?

Some do, some don't. Some make a big issue of it. Some just peacefully live their lives without God. Thing is, you'll never know who the latter are. Don't assume all atheists are Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and out making a fuss. There are plenty, probably the majority, who just get on with life, just as there are a large number of religious people who just go about their life of faith without stirring the pot or making a fuss. Live and let live, basically.

That said, part of the reason for the red line is that a certain subset of people who believe in God want their beliefs codified in public policy, which means those beliefs are being forced on atheists and anyone else subject to that public policy (e.g. the abortion debate in the US). So arguably, the atheists are just responding to attempts by the religious to spread their faith through coercion. Those atheists go too far when they suggest things like actively banning religion, of course, but it is to some degree a defensive response. If religious people would engage in respectful dialogue rather than insisting that their book (be it the Bible, Qu'ran, or whatever) and faith must apply to all, maybe the militant wing of the atheists would tone it down, too.

 

[WhyCzar]

So why do atheists draw a red line at the unprovable existence of God?

So, it is not a contingent fact that God does not appear among the objects posited by our best scientific theories; God could not so appear. The kind of existence we attribute to the objects studied by natural science—electrons, neutrinos, quarks, cellular molecules, RNA strands—is contingent, whereas God’s existence is not. The God of monotheism is not a being that happens to exist (or not). Rather God is ipsum esse subsistens (the very act of “to be” itself), as Thomas Aquinas famously put it. For this reason, Aquinas said that God does not even fall under ens commune, the subject of metaphysics. We are speaking only analogically when we use the same word, “exist,” to characterize both electrons and God.

To be sure, such talk of existence can hardly be rendered adequately by translation into the logic of quantifiers. But that hardly shows that God does not exist, only that such logical tools are inadequate. Logical tools may be useful in helping us clarify our beliefs about how many and which objects exist. They might even be useful in helping us clarify our beliefs about God. But, from the theist’s point of view, such tools must inevitably fail to capture God’s essence. Far from vindicating atheism, this only confirms something we theists knew all along: That God’s essence may never be grasped perfectly, this side of eternity, even if we can still know that God exists.

The Hole in Atheist Arguments About Whether God Exists

M. Anthony Mills on attempts to empirically disprove the existence of God.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

 

[Luce NDs]

Yes, and most of what we feel we know in ordinary day to day life is either subjective or unprovable in this way. So why do atheists draw a red line at the unprovable existence of God?

Maybe because of the irreputable existence of hate in the God edifices? They face across the lion in the love-hate deux! Parallels???

And some things you cannot discuss decently in the company of those driven towards avarice ... control theory! Glasser wrote a tome entitled Control Theory clearly it was up for debate!

 

[WhyCzar]

Theodore Drange is one of a relatively small number of academic philosophers who have devoted a large part of their intellectual efforts over the last thirty-some years to systematically opposing theism. Interestingly, he does not think that ANB has any force whatever against what he terms ‘God-in-general’.

The Argument From Nonbelief (ANB)​

Let the gospel message consist of the following three propositions: (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.(b) That being has a son.(c) The ruler of the universe has sent his son to be the savior of humanity.

Let situation S be the situation (or situation type) of all, or almost all, humans since the time of Jesus of Nazareth coming to believe all three propositions of the gospel message by the time of their physical death.

(A) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then he would be able to bring about situation S, all things considered; want to bring about situation S, i.e., have it among his desires; not want anything else that necessarily conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as he wants to bring about situation S; be rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

(B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.

(C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans since the time of Jesus of Nazareth have come to believe all the propositions of the gospel message by the time of their physical death.

(D) Therefore, there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).

(E) Hence, the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist.

Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange | Issue 47 | Philosophy Now

Charles Echelbarger explains the atheistic arguments of Theodore Drange.

philosophynow.org

 

[Mystic]

My point is that when most atheists are engaged in debate, they play the not proven card in a way that is inconsistent with what they claim to know in ordinary day to day life (e. g. the unprovable claim that they love and are loved by their families. They totally ignore the more rational heuristic approach, i. .e that that theory should be preferred which makes the most sense of all the relevant data.

 

[Jaebius]

Some do, some don't. Some make a big issue of it. Some just peacefully live their lives without God. Thing is, you'll never know who the latter are. Don't assume all atheists are Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and out making a fuss. There are plenty, probably the majority, who just get on with life, just as there are a large number of religious people who just go about their life of faith without stirring the pot or making a fuss. Live and let live, basically.

That said, part of the reason for the red line is that a certain subset of people who believe in God want their beliefs codified in public policy, which means those beliefs are being forced on atheists and anyone else subject to that public policy (e.g. the abortion debate in the US). So arguably, the atheists are just responding to attempts by the religious to spread their faith through coercion. Those atheists go too far when they suggest things like actively banning religion, of course, but it is to some degree a defensive response. If religious people would engage in respectful dialogue rather than insisting that their book (be it the Bible, Qu'ran, or whatever) and faith must apply to all, maybe the militant wing of the atheists would tone it down, too.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @Mendalla. I appreciate your respectful tone. As a Christian, I believe that our faith calls us to love all people, regardless of their beliefs. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. This includes those who don't share our faith.

It’s true that some people live their lives peacefully without belief in God. Let's respect that. When we Christians share our faith, we must always do so with love.

Peter encourages us to always be prepared to respectfully give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have. This means we must engage in respectful dialogue and listen to others, rather than just trying to force our beliefs onto everyone.

Public policy debates are complex. Let's all approach these discussions with empathy. We Christians must advocate for our beliefs in a way that respects others' dignity.

Really, my hope's that through respectful dialogue, we'll all find common ground and work together for the common good. Let’s be peacemakers in our communities

 

[Mystic]

Here is a list of famous atheists who came to faith and how this happened:
22

MSN

The list includes fanous scientists like Sir Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and Peter Hitches, brother of Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Mendalla]

Sir Francis Collins

He is not a "Sir". The Brits don't knight Americans. And he is probably my favourite Christian apologist. The Language of God makes the case for a Christianity that accepts the findings of science better than anything else I have read.

 

[WhyCzar]

On a more personal note, I will always respect and defend everyone’s right to religious freedom so long as my right to remain non-religious is also equally respected and one’s religious beliefs do not in any way lead to violence or criminal intent.

I would add that I am completely sick and tired of hearing the constant bickering, virtue-signaling and victim claims going on between Christians, Muslims and Jews (and all the rest for that matter) over who is more evil, who is more wrong, who did more wrong, who is the best representative of the divine order, who runs the world, who is to blame for all the worlds ills, all while the world continues to tear itself apart.

Religions had thousands of years to get it right and to bring light and true authentic unity to the world and all we got was more darkness, inhumanity, division, war and tyranny.

The hyper-focus on the afterlife and spiritual dimensions “elsewhere” while sowing antagonism to nature and selfhood has damned this world to its present condition in the here and now.

Older and once wiser traditions were originally meant to glorify and harmonize with the natural order, not to warp it for the purpose of trying to control and dominate it.

The human race needs to grow up, find balance and legitimately evolve spiritually, or we are doomed to kill each other off completely over nonsensical and self destructive ideas.

Rant complete. I’m all good now.

 

[Jaebius]

On a more personal note, I will always respect and defend everyone’s right to religious freedom so long as my right to remain non-religious is also equally respected and one’s religious beliefs do not in any way lead to violence or criminal intent.

I would add that I am completely sick and tired of hearing the constant bickering, virtue-signaling and victim claims going on between Christians, Muslims and Jews (and all the rest for that matter) over who is more evil, who is more wrong, who did more wrong, who is the best representative of the divine order, who runs the world, who is to blame for all the worlds ills, all while the world continues to tear itself apart.

Religions had thousands of years to get it right and to bring light and true authentic unity to the world and all we got was more darkness, inhumanity, division, war and tyranny.

The hyper-focus on the afterlife and spiritual dimensions “elsewhere” while sowing antagonism to nature and selfhood has damned this world to its present condition in the here and now.

Older and once wiser traditions were originally meant to glorify and harmonize with the natural order, not to warp it for the purpose of trying to control and dominate it.

The human race needs to grow up, find balance and legitimately evolve spiritually, or we are doomed to kill each other off completely over nonsensical and self destructive ideas.

Rant complete. I’m all good now.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts so openly. I appreciate your desire for a more harmonious world. As a Christian, I also long for peace. I believe that true change comes from a friendship with Christ.

I grasp your frustration with the conflicts often associated with religion. It’s heartbreaking to see how humanity has used faith as a tool for division. Jesus Himself taught us to love our neighbors and even our enemies.

I believe that Christianity's core message's one of hope. Jesus came to bring light into the darkness.

I respect your view and agree that we need to grow spiritually. For me, this growth comes from following Jesus’ teachings and striving to live out his love in practical ways. I hope we can together work together towards a better world.

Thank you again for your honesty. May we all build bridges of peace

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Here's another collective illusion that we make just as dangerous decisions about: love. What is love? You can't prove it beyond subjectively, but it defines much or our lives.

Love and the Brain

They have also been happily married for nearly four decades.

hms.harvard.edu

When we Christians share our faith, we must always do so with love.

But you don't, there is too much hatred within your tenets for you to even come near expressing love when you share your faith with another.

As a Christian, I also long for peace. I believe that true change comes from a friendship with Christ.

And that's where you fail.

Jesus Himself taught us to love our neighbors and even our enemies.

If you actually loved your neighbours, you wouldn't have enemies.

I believe that Christianity's core message's one of hope. Jesus came to bring light into the darkness.

It has since been proven, that is back to front.

I hope we can together work together towards a better world.

I doubt that will ever happen. there is far to much hatred within your belief system.

 

[Jaebius]

Love and the Brain

They have also been happily married for nearly four decades.

hms.harvard.edu

But you don't, there is too much hatred within your tenets for you to even come near expressing love when you share your faith with another.

And that's where you fail.

If you actually loved your neighbours, you wouldn't have enemies.

It has since been proven, that is back to front.

I doubt that will ever happen. there is far to much hatred within your belief system.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I grasp that you've strong feelings about this. I appreciate the chance to respond.

As a Christian, I believe that love's at my faith's core. Our goal's to strive towards the love that Jesus exemplified.

I'm truly sorry that you've experienced hatred from those who profess to follow Christ. This isn't the way Jesus taught us to live. He called us to be peacemakers.

Our change into being Christ's friends is meant to be reflected in how we treat others - with love. I hope that through open dialogue, we can work together towards a better world.

Thank you again for sharing your view. I hope we can continue this conversation with mutual respect

 

[Luce NDs]

It is almost stellar to see da' light penetrate the darkness (which is rumored to be nothing) since it cannot be observed due to the abstract nature ... and thus nothing prevails as the existence f folk demands a love to die for ... an excellent narrative if you peek into the tail! Are there connections? Yes, donkeys ... and they may upset the plans of other critters of the canine variety! Dogs, eh ... the thought avails me ... thus I think: "Just As I Am!" While the counterforces descend on me ... virtue 've folly ... more just words that another group will declare as just not ... thus claimed to be non-existent ... nothing there ... so it goes as Po Go did He Goes or "Ego when unitized ... entanglement of emotions in the brain thing ... mysterious!

 

[Luce NDs]

Is life a waste of time or just a device to assist time passing to someone stuck out there timeless in the ultimate dimension ... really nothing that we can speak of intelligently ... from that perspective life is a very small cosmological comedy ... that tragically has two ends are tye dupe ... duped as rendered down ... a seldom observed condition as shamefully committed in the dark while folk are grievously out of their heads ... over the guilt of doing somethin emotionally directed ... as leading t leaning from MS Takes ... a Given as in Adon Os ... really quite a boner ... distraught by Aphrodesia posing as Athenia ... as if is all laid out as a lie ... spherical conspiracy! That's a roundabout in all vectors ... prickly topic like Pede in the dome initiating the Pete Prin. and a man without an ear ... nothing is thus captivated! In one side and no where to go ... Trumps the entire deck that has convinced not to process ... nothing!

So! They do not ... and thought was suspended ... while reality of emotions was reworked ... few grasps thus folly ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

As a Christian, I believe that love's at my faith's core.

Yes I understand that is what you believe. However you should really delve a lot deeper into your faith's core.

I'm truly sorry that you've experienced hatred from those who profess to follow Christ.

I and The world has experienced hatred from your religion and several other religions. Religions are hateful establishments.
As I said before if there are any believers who have set aside their holy book and became a better group for it, then great.
However, I've never come across a group of believers like that.

This isn't the way Jesus taught us to live. He called us to be peacemakers.

Our change into being Christ's friends is meant to be reflected in how we treat others - with love.

Then you either need to read your bible thoroughly or discard it. You are never going to get to where you claim you want to be with it in hand. Sorry.
Just be a good person there is no need for you to follow a holy book or a church you can obtain that status without them.