Gabriel, if you are interested in discussion/debate, join our facebook page "Coptic Orthodox Apologists". Debate is welcome, actually encouraged there. I think that would be a better fit for you, if you are seeking a deeper debate.
You've just conflated the issue of stipulation regarding semantics with the topic of belief. So i'll address them separately.
Words can be redefined by whoever and whenever, since words are a mere convention of man and there are no rules in the english language that says we can't give words new meanings. However, when we communicate with each other we try to use words in a way that they are commonly applied, so that the person we are communicating with can understand what we are saying, and vice versa. But when a word holds a meaning that no longer accurately describes or accurately reflects the world around us, we change the meaning of the word. In the case of atheism, the definition hasn't always been consistent but it is more so leaning towards the 'rejection' or 'non belief of a God' due to the way the word is being applied amongst most atheists. People generally identify with the word atheism because its a fast and easy way to describe their position regarding god claims. But many people also identify with words that describe a negative, such as vegetarians, someone who doesn't eat meat.
"You have to believe there is no God, it is a belief, not a lack of. Non-belief is not "rejecting a statement", it is an attempt to sound smart."
No. I, nor anyone else has to 'believe there is no god', and the rationale that 'non-belief' doesn't mean anything because it sounds smart, is absurd.
Here's an example of non-belief: But lets start with a re-cap - 'a belief is accepting a statement' (for what ever reason). So lets say that I do not believe the lockness monster exists because the evidence is lacking. This doesn't mean that I am therefore convinced (believe) that the lockness monster does not exist. Instead, as a result, I do not accept either statement i.e. 'the lockness monster exists', and 'the lockness monster does not exist' until there is sufficient evidence to for either one.
A simple analogy can be used to understand this: "just because I'm not buying what you're selling, doesn't mean I'm selling something else"
Make sense?
"Are historical facts relevant to you? "
I addressed this in an earlier post.
"You certainly have an agenda here, you stated yourself, you are here to "engage in discussion with people", for what purpose I am not sure."
So back to reasoning from ignorance. Because you don't know why I engage in discussions here, I therefore have an agenda. If I gave you a reason (in fact I have numerous times) you probably won't believe me anyway, so I don't care lol
"you not only are seeking to re-define a word but how people describe what they believe."
Yes. As I said earlier, this is how words become reflective of the world they are used in, and thus become relevant and useful.
Because then if he was, that lack of hope could of being the reason for his suicide. Which would bring me back to the point I made about Darwin. His lack of hope after his daughter died. Christians live in hope. It's their faith.
Joshua I don't know much about Darwin's life story so I can't comment on it. In regards to Cobain, if he killed himself because he was a nihilist, it would seem rather arbitrary that he would do it at the peak of his career. He was a drug addict, suffered from bi-polar and was gong through a divorce with courtney love. And I think the latter probably pushed him well over the edge. Its interesting though, the PI who was hired by love, thinks she actually killed him. Interesting, eh?
"God is, or He is not" A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager. (It's not optional.) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
Without getting into all of the stuff about evolution and Big Bang. Science cannot even fathom the concept of something from nothing. It has never been proven, shown, modelled, or dreamed into being. There is not even a science fiction episode that has tackled that point.
So for all of the fake "Atheists" wallowing in their arrogance, immorality, feel sorry for themselves mentality: Where is the starting point? How can the universe come from nothing?
Common GY tell us about that avatar.
I also don't like cheap arrogance. If you are going to be arrogant you have to have some knowledge base on the topic. Or else one is just a cheap ranter. The really good arrogant types usually have a long litany in their knowledge base (they naturally are not understanding the very obvious before them). I mean really GY if you are going to make arrogant comments you need to have a good fund of knowledge and education to back it, or some powerful notion of existence to back your claims.
Stalin/Lenin/Hitler had their arrogance, they backed it with plenty of reading and writing, and even armies. It doesn't seem you have any of the above.
I was an atheist for a long time, and I think for most of that I was actually an atheist. I literally did not care about religion. It was only when I became aware that the possibility of the existence of an almighty God did I begin attacking religion. To be honest, I learned a lot about religion in general in this period. In essence, the evidence to infer the existence of God was enough to make me question. So the major problem for me is faith. I believe because the evidence, not because of some revelation or anything.
I'm suggesting that by Kurts own confession he did not feel appreciated and his drug use at the age of thirteen contributed to a nihilisic frame of mind. Therefore his direction was away from hope.
I'm suggesting that by Kurts own confession he did not feel appreciated and his drug use at the age of thirteen contributed to a nihilisic frame of mind. Therefore his direction was away from hope.
It really baffles me. Cobain did not have a rough life by any means. Bob Marley had a rough childhood and constantly witnessed violence. Bob's songs were full of good messages, while Cobain whined and complained like a 13 year old girl. I just don't get it.
Bob Marley found his Ethiopian roots and Haile Salassie came to Jamaica and it rained in which it hadn't done so in a long time until Haile steped of the plane. Haile came from the Ras, hence Rastifarians. Bob also had an Ethiopian Othodox funeral. Kurt was hurting himself. Maybe if he wrote his music and played for people unconditionally, without the need to be appreciated he might still be alive.
pascals wager is probably the weakest argument a theist could make. Its not actually even for the existence of god its an argument for one to believe in god. However its riddled with logical fallacies. Its a false dichotomy, meaning it takes into account only one god, and how do you know you are betting on the god that actually exists? maybe krishna exists, or some other god that was worshipped in ancient times, and you land yourself in that god's hell for not believing in him? Its also an appeal to consequence, meaning the outcome is reached based on ones desires i.e. to avoid hell and gain paradise. Additionally, while the Christian God may either exists or doesn't, that doesn't mean he has a 50% chance of actually existing. Thats like saying I bought a lottery ticket and I will either win or won't win, therefore I have a 50% chance of wining, which isn't true at all, its still one in millions and millions.
Ilovestmark, you're argument is: god created something from nothing, science hasn't observed that something can come from nothing, science can't explain it either, therefore god did it. You're actually arguing for something that may not actually have happened i.e. something coming form nothing. And you're arguing from ignorance. We don't understand what caused the big bang or the origin of all matter, but so what? Ignorance doesn't prove anything, except ignorance. Please go pick up a book on critical thinking.
Joshua and I have been speaking about the avatar for the past few posts. If you have a specific question then ask.. do you want me to talk about the origin of the photo, the lighting used in it, who the photographer was? If you aren't aware that we already established it was Kurt Cobain then you haven't been paying attention.
If i come across as arrogant, well I apologise. No I don't have a 'long litany of knowledge', though I do have a basic understanding of logic and some science.
What claims about existence have I been making that requires a POWERFUL notion of existence to back it up?
LOL what do I care of stalin/lenin and hitler? How are they relevant? you're right I don't have armies (???). But I'm going to guess that some of these guys were atheists? So by implication atheism necessarily leads to immorality and oppression??? lol, did i already suggest you pick up a book on critical thinking somewhere in this post?
Joshua,
I don't remember the contents of his suicide note, but if he committed suicide because he wasn't feeling appreciated then it probably had nothing to do with nihilism - assuming he was a nihilist. Nihilism doesn't necessarily lead to suicide or depression anyway, you can still make or find a purpose for yourself and live a fulfilling life and still not believe that there is a 'bigger picture'. I don't think suicide is always black and white, he may not have felt appreciated, he also may have felt alone and coupled with mental health issues, he may not have been able to cope. Just some thoughts.
Ioannes,
"I believe because the evidence, not because of some revelation or anything." I'd like to know what that evidence is, but I'll start that conversation on your page.
1. With all of the random permeations in the Universe that would be required, it would be a cause for an infinity beyond inifinity. You cannot have that much randomness. The inifinite aspect defines God.
2. The more you post, the more you prove:
a) cheap arrogance b) the less than 25 years old mentality c) on drugs d) hallucinates e) had a bad childhood; probably abused f) hates the world because you have failed at everything.
When I was talking about the fascist dictators, I was saying that they were at least able to convince people, muster an army and show some pomp to their arrogance.
In your case, it is the I will read five books, and now I have learned everything mentality.
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover to at least know what you are attacking? Have you read the Koran? Have you read Hindu and Confuscist writings? Those fake little "atheist" comic books don't cover the spectrum. When you get your "Ph.D" in Atheism and have a broad spectrum to your arrogance then you can be believable.
As it stands: just cheap arrogance, from a failure in life, who mires in his mistakes rather than seeking to rise, and seeks to blame everyone--especially God.
God did not do anything bad to you. If a human being did, it was not God's fault.
I have read your wonderful writers, as I did minor in college in: Physics, Mathematics, Classics, Philosophy. I majored in Chemistry. The thing I found miserable about these writers is that they came from terrible lives, and were always writing to try to convince themselves of falsehood. The tone in their writings were not to try to explain or convince anyone other than their inner being--their soul.
The soul knows who made it, despite how foolish and stupid the brain and mouth are.
It seems you have not convinced yourself of anything. You are a fake, and certainly not an 'atheist'--just a cheap arrogant little tike.
You are trying to corrupt the little kids on this site, so there can be a 'mass effect' to your thought process. I find it ridiculous that someone would post an avatar of K. Cobain as a model of his representation. You obviously don't have good taste. It certainly makes a statement of the pathetic aspect to your reasoning. Cobain is your idol? Cobain is a symbol of your 'godliness'? Common dude, you picked a loser to symbolize your posts. Don't you realize what kind of statement that makes about you.
wow. I read this and I was actually speechless. I don't think I've ever been so offended. You know what, I'm going to end this conversation between you and I, ilovestmark. I don't want you to address me again and I don't want to you to pm me. You've crossed a line. You've demonstrated that you aren't able to hold a civil conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you, you've demonstrated that you will go to any lengths just to try to get your point across even if you are hurtful, judgmental and irrational. Your standard of evidence and your ability to reason is so poor that you would sum up my life as a victim of child abuse, who is on drugs and who is a failure at everything, just from reading my posts. What do you think the god that you are trying to convince me of, would say about the manner in which you've conducted yourself? Dude, I even apologised to you in my last post if I came across as arrogant. You either didn't read it or you chose not to forgive me. While I don't believe in god for ACTUAL, valid reasons, it was people like you that made me feel bad about myself, and demotivated me to actually stay in church. Bullies like you, who actually think they are doing the work of their lord. At least as a 24 year old atheist I've been able to show respect to you.
But just to demonstrate how badly you need to go back to those philosophy and logic classes you minored in; Kurt Cobain is my avatar because he was the only picture I liked. He isn't my idle. Nor does he 'symbolise my posts', he is entirely irrelevant to them. And what in the hell has my 'taste' got to do with anything?? Do you want to also tell me how bad my dress sense is? Look up the terms ad hominem and valid inference, and go back to school dude...Oh and learn some manners.
You have to understand that you are on a Coptic Orthodox Christian site. Trying to convince people of atheism or tolerance of homosexuality will not work. If people react harshly, then it is because you have pushed them to that point with your refusal to be persuaded by anything.
If you believe you are an atheist, then absolutely nothing in this life should matter to you because you believe that...when you die...that's it. That means even you're posts are useless. You're trying to convince people of a path and an existence that is indeed hopeless, fruitless, miserable, and most importantly, pointless.
We believe and confess that there indeed is life everlasting and eternal glory to those who choose to follow and bear the Holy Cross of the "I AM." Or to put it another way, "I AM The One Who Exists."
Please wake up. You have an opprutunity in front of you, while your are still breathing and alive, to change and become a man of true power. A person who is a man of faith, who puts his trust in the One Who sustains the very universe.
Just look at the example of the beloved H.H. Pope Shenouda III. His Holiness was a man of incredible character. His Holiness was a person who served the world with dignity, honor, and had the utmost respect for the individual human being. THESE are the types of people you should try to model your life on.
Talk to your Priest. Consult your Bishop. See what they have to say. Don't figure things out alone.
You have not shown respect to anyone, especially God.
I do not care if you respect me or not.
Your assertions about God are categorically wrong. You may have your opinion, but it is wrong. My observations, although painful, are correct. The tripartite categorization is correct. I get paid to say the obvious. I make a good living from that aspect of my career. People have difficulty looking in the mirror and realizing the truth and the obvious.
I'm not a psychoanalyst, but it says a lot about chosing Cobain. I'm surprised you did not chose the picture of famous "fake atheists": Hitler, Stalin, Freud, O'Hare, etc. At least I would have seen the consistency in your thought process.
You are a cheap arrogance, now trying to take on the persecuted martyred role. Dude, you will not get any sympathy from me.
I'm not a bully. Bully is defined by one coming on this site and insulting everyone with this founded "fake revelation" that you somehow can prove there is no God.
The tripartite holds--atheist:
1. arrogant--believing in their own pronounced godhead; 2. functioning immorals; 3. blaming God for the pain in their life.
God has not done anything to you. Go look in the mirror.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12687.msg154644#msg154644 date=1334630331] "Proving He is God is a matter of faith"
And this is the kicker, why should an atheist, a non believer, someone who does not presuppose the validity of christianity just decide to take this religious claim on faith? or anything, rather? In fact its really difficult to. And I think this is where Joshua (and i think many people) mistake a reasonable standard of evidence for stubbornness.
While there may be good evidence to suggest that Jesus did exist and he was a wise teacher, this doesn't support the miracle claims written of Jesus in the bible. There aren't any contemporary sources that attested to any of his miracles. Even so, those sorts of claims require some kind observation not just people writing about them, at least for it to be convincing to people who require more than just text to be convinced of miracles.
Gabriel, this is not how history works. Everything was written down, and nearly everyone who wrote something about someone wrote it down well after the passing of the person. How do we know anything in history happened if all we have is written text? First, the majority of people were illiterate, generally only educated people could read and write. This why scribes were so well paid.
So to set a standard of what you think should be counted is not how things work. You ask for eyewitnesses, but discount the Gospels or the talmudic writing. You cannot set the standard for what is acceptable eyewitness accounts, or what is reliable and what is not. There are people that do this for a living, study these things very closely and have come to a different conclusion.
If we logically break down the evidence, as I had done in an earlier post, it becomes clear that Christ being who He said He is, is far more logical than Him being some "wise man". Do you not find it odd that you selectively embrace what you feel is acceptable evidence? I have taken the evidence as a whole, non-Christian and Christian sources alike, jewish, pagan, and Christian. You have either demeaned or completely denied the Christian evidence. Why do the jews, who were also eyewitnesses, try to explain Christ as a magician? Why didn't they call Him crazy? They knew He was not crazy, and they knew that their followers knew that. So to write him off so easily would not have sufficed for those who may be thinking of being Christian. So, to explain these "miracles" to their people, they described Him as a magician, which is demeaning but logical if you were trying to explain how someone did something pretty amazing.
Had they wrote nothing at all, then that would be suspicious indeed. But, they DID write something, many things actually. Therefore you have still avoided the non-Christian evidence that would infer Christ is something more than a "wise man". And how is it that you can so easily discredit eyewitness accounts? You, 2,000 years later, know more than those who wrote this down?
This is an Orthodox Christian Forum. Please respect the fact that it is meant to edify people but not used as a high school classes with lots of jokes and arguments. Most here come to learn from each other. Let us have peace and love if not please do not write. If my words are not edifying why not keep quite?
I agree, ILSM's response was a bit over the edge, however, I can understand his frustration. Gabe has multiple accounts, yet asserts he has no agenda. He is constantly causing problems in this forum and the moderators seem completely unwilling, or unable, to do anything about it. This is a Coptic Orthodox forum, not a free for all. It certainly is not a place to come and try to prove something by getting everyone angry. I offered Gabe an alternative to tasbeha in my FB group, which I think all of us there will benefit, as well as Gabe, from these discussions. However, there are young kids on here, it is inappropriate to do and say the things Gabe has said. This does not excuse ILSM's personal attack on Gabe.
I am not happy with what seems to be a lack of moderation on these forums. If ILSM's remarks are not acceptable, then neither is subversion.
Comments
Words can be redefined by whoever and whenever, since words are a mere convention of man and there are no rules in the english language that says we can't give words new meanings. However, when we communicate with each other we try to use words in a way that they are commonly applied, so that the person we are communicating with can understand what we are saying, and vice versa. But when a word holds a meaning that no longer accurately describes or accurately reflects the world around us, we change the meaning of the word. In the case of atheism, the definition hasn't always been consistent but it is more so leaning towards the 'rejection' or 'non belief of a God' due to the way the word is being applied amongst most atheists. People generally identify with the word atheism because its a fast and easy way to describe their position regarding god claims. But many people also identify with words that describe a negative, such as vegetarians, someone who doesn't eat meat.
"You have to believe there is no God, it is a belief, not a lack of. Non-belief is not "rejecting a statement", it is an attempt to sound smart."
No. I, nor anyone else has to 'believe there is no god', and the rationale that 'non-belief' doesn't mean anything because it sounds smart, is absurd.
Here's an example of non-belief: But lets start with a re-cap - 'a belief is accepting a statement' (for what ever reason). So lets say that I do not believe the lockness monster exists because the evidence is lacking. This doesn't mean that I am therefore convinced (believe) that the lockness monster does not exist. Instead, as a result, I do not accept either statement i.e. 'the lockness monster exists', and 'the lockness monster does not exist' until there is sufficient evidence to for either one.
A simple analogy can be used to understand this: "just because I'm not buying what you're selling, doesn't mean I'm selling something else"
Make sense?
"Are historical facts relevant to you? "
I addressed this in an earlier post.
"You certainly have an agenda here, you stated yourself, you are here to "engage in discussion with people", for what purpose I am not sure."
So back to reasoning from ignorance. Because you don't know why I engage in discussions here, I therefore have an agenda. If I gave you a reason (in fact I have numerous times) you probably won't believe me anyway, so I don't care lol
"you not only are seeking to re-define a word but how people describe what they believe."
Yes. As I said earlier, this is how words become reflective of the world they are used in, and thus become relevant and useful.
The more you post, the more you prove that you are belonging in all three categories that I posted about the real face of "Atheism".
Please keep talking.
Who is in the picture for your avatar?
I believe it's Kurt Corbain ILSM.
The more you post, the more you prove that you are belonging in all three categories that I posted about the real face of "Atheism"."
Of course I do, because you're right and I'm wrong. I thought you established this earlier, dude?
Was Kurt Corbain nihilistic?
Because then if he was, that lack of hope could of being the reason for his suicide. Which would bring me back to the point I made about Darwin. His lack of hope after his daughter died. Christians live in hope. It's their faith.
You haven't told us about the avatar.
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
ONLY AN INSANE PERSON WOULD CHOOSE GOD IS NOT.
Only God can create from nothing.
Without getting into all of the stuff about evolution and Big Bang. Science cannot even fathom the concept of something from nothing. It has never been proven, shown, modelled, or dreamed into being. There is not even a science fiction episode that has tackled that point.
So for all of the fake "Atheists" wallowing in their arrogance, immorality, feel sorry for themselves mentality: Where is the starting point? How can the universe come from nothing?
Common GY tell us about that avatar.
I also don't like cheap arrogance. If you are going to be arrogant you have to have some knowledge base on the topic. Or else one is just a cheap ranter. The really good arrogant types usually have a long litany in their knowledge base (they naturally are not understanding the very obvious before them).
I mean really GY if you are going to make arrogant comments you need to have a good fund of knowledge and education to back it, or some powerful notion of existence to back your claims.
Stalin/Lenin/Hitler had their arrogance, they backed it with plenty of reading and writing, and even armies. It doesn't seem you have any of the above.
Just cheap arrogance.
I'm suggesting that by Kurts own confession he did not feel appreciated and his drug use at the age of thirteen contributed to a nihilisic frame of mind. Therefore his direction was away from hope.
I'm suggesting that by Kurts own confession he did not feel appreciated and his drug use at the age of thirteen contributed to a nihilisic frame of mind. Therefore his direction was away from hope.
It really baffles me. Cobain did not have a rough life by any means. Bob Marley had a rough childhood and constantly witnessed violence. Bob's songs were full of good messages, while Cobain whined and complained like a 13 year old girl. I just don't get it.
Different truths different directions.
pascals wager is probably the weakest argument a theist could make. Its not actually even for the existence of god its an argument for one to believe in god. However its riddled with logical fallacies. Its a false dichotomy, meaning it takes into account only one god, and how do you know you are betting on the god that actually exists? maybe krishna exists, or some other god that was worshipped in ancient times, and you land yourself in that god's hell for not believing in him? Its also an appeal to consequence, meaning the outcome is reached based on ones desires i.e. to avoid hell and gain paradise. Additionally, while the Christian God may either exists or doesn't, that doesn't mean he has a 50% chance of actually existing. Thats like saying I bought a lottery ticket and I will either win or won't win, therefore I have a 50% chance of wining, which isn't true at all, its still one in millions and millions.
Ilovestmark, you're argument is: god created something from nothing, science hasn't observed that something can come from nothing, science can't explain it either, therefore god did it. You're actually arguing for something that may not actually have happened i.e. something coming form nothing. And you're arguing from ignorance. We don't understand what caused the big bang or the origin of all matter, but so what? Ignorance doesn't prove anything, except ignorance. Please go pick up a book on critical thinking.
Joshua and I have been speaking about the avatar for the past few posts. If you have a specific question then ask.. do you want me to talk about the origin of the photo, the lighting used in it, who the photographer was? If you aren't aware that we already established it was Kurt Cobain then you haven't been paying attention.
If i come across as arrogant, well I apologise. No I don't have a 'long litany of knowledge', though I do have a basic understanding of logic and some science.
What claims about existence have I been making that requires a POWERFUL notion of existence to back it up?
LOL what do I care of stalin/lenin and hitler? How are they relevant? you're right I don't have armies (???). But I'm going to guess that some of these guys were atheists? So by implication atheism necessarily leads to immorality and oppression??? lol, did i already suggest you pick up a book on critical thinking somewhere in this post?
Joshua,
I don't remember the contents of his suicide note, but if he committed suicide because he wasn't feeling appreciated then it probably had nothing to do with nihilism - assuming he was a nihilist. Nihilism doesn't necessarily lead to suicide or depression anyway, you can still make or find a purpose for yourself and live a fulfilling life and still not believe that there is a 'bigger picture'. I don't think suicide is always black and white, he may not have felt appreciated, he also may have felt alone and coupled with mental health issues, he may not have been able to cope. Just some thoughts.
Ioannes,
"I believe because the evidence, not because of some revelation or anything." I'd like to know what that evidence is, but I'll start that conversation on your page.
Here's a thought:
1. With all of the random permeations in the Universe that would be required, it would be a cause for an infinity beyond inifinity. You cannot have that much randomness. The inifinite aspect defines God.
2. The more you post, the more you prove:
a) cheap arrogance
b) the less than 25 years old mentality
c) on drugs
d) hallucinates
e) had a bad childhood; probably abused
f) hates the world because you have failed at everything.
When I was talking about the fascist dictators, I was saying that they were at least able to convince people, muster an army and show some pomp to their arrogance.
In your case, it is the I will read five books, and now I have learned everything mentality.
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover to at least know what you are attacking? Have you read the Koran? Have you read Hindu and Confuscist writings? Those fake little "atheist" comic books don't cover the spectrum. When you get your "Ph.D" in Atheism and have a broad spectrum to your arrogance then you can be believable.
As it stands: just cheap arrogance, from a failure in life, who mires in his mistakes rather than seeking to rise, and seeks to blame everyone--especially God.
God did not do anything bad to you. If a human being did, it was not God's fault.
I have read your wonderful writers, as I did minor in college in: Physics, Mathematics, Classics, Philosophy. I majored in Chemistry. The thing I found miserable about these writers is that they came from terrible lives, and were always writing to try to convince themselves of falsehood. The tone in their writings were not to try to explain or convince anyone other than their inner being--their soul.
The soul knows who made it, despite how foolish and stupid the brain and mouth are.
It seems you have not convinced yourself of anything. You are a fake, and certainly not an 'atheist'--just a cheap arrogant little tike.
You are trying to corrupt the little kids on this site, so there can be a 'mass effect' to your thought process. I find it ridiculous that someone would post an avatar of K. Cobain as a model of his representation. You obviously don't have good taste. It certainly makes a statement of the pathetic aspect to your reasoning. Cobain is your idol? Cobain is a symbol of your 'godliness'? Common dude, you picked a loser to symbolize your posts. Don't you realize what kind of statement that makes about you.
wow. I read this and I was actually speechless. I don't think I've ever been so offended. You know what, I'm going to end this conversation between you and I, ilovestmark. I don't want you to address me again and I don't want to you to pm me. You've crossed a line. You've demonstrated that you aren't able to hold a civil conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you, you've demonstrated that you will go to any lengths just to try to get your point across even if you are hurtful, judgmental and irrational. Your standard of evidence and your ability to reason is so poor that you would sum up my life as a victim of child abuse, who is on drugs and who is a failure at everything, just from reading my posts. What do you think the god that you are trying to convince me of, would say about the manner in which you've conducted yourself?
Dude, I even apologised to you in my last post if I came across as arrogant. You either didn't read it or you chose not to forgive me. While I don't believe in god for ACTUAL, valid reasons, it was people like you that made me feel bad about myself, and demotivated me to actually stay in church. Bullies like you, who actually think they are doing the work of their lord. At least as a 24 year old atheist I've been able to show respect to you.
But just to demonstrate how badly you need to go back to those philosophy and logic classes you minored in; Kurt Cobain is my avatar because he was the only picture I liked. He isn't my idle. Nor does he 'symbolise my posts', he is entirely irrelevant to them. And what in the hell has my 'taste' got to do with anything?? Do you want to also tell me how bad my dress sense is? Look up the terms ad hominem and valid inference, and go back to school dude...Oh and learn some manners.
You have to understand that you are on a Coptic Orthodox Christian site. Trying to convince people of atheism or tolerance of homosexuality will not work. If people react harshly, then it is because you have pushed them to that point with your refusal to be persuaded by anything.
If you believe you are an atheist, then absolutely nothing in this life should matter to you because you believe that...when you die...that's it. That means even you're posts are useless. You're trying to convince people of a path and an existence that is indeed hopeless, fruitless, miserable, and most importantly, pointless.
We believe and confess that there indeed is life everlasting and eternal glory to those who choose to follow and bear the Holy Cross of the "I AM." Or to put it another way, "I AM The One Who Exists."
Please wake up. You have an opprutunity in front of you, while your are still breathing and alive, to change and become a man of true power. A person who is a man of faith, who puts his trust in the One Who sustains the very universe.
Just look at the example of the beloved H.H. Pope Shenouda III. His Holiness was a man of incredible character. His Holiness was a person who served the world with dignity, honor, and had the utmost respect for the individual human being. THESE are the types of people you should try to model your life on.
Talk to your Priest. Consult your Bishop. See what they have to say. Don't figure things out alone.
God be with you in your life, GabrielYakub.
✞✞✞
You have not shown respect to anyone, especially God.
I do not care if you respect me or not.
Your assertions about God are categorically wrong. You may have your opinion, but it is wrong.
My observations, although painful, are correct. The tripartite categorization is correct.
I get paid to say the obvious. I make a good living from that aspect of my career.
People have difficulty looking in the mirror and realizing the truth and the obvious.
I'm not a psychoanalyst, but it says a lot about chosing Cobain. I'm surprised you did not chose the picture of famous "fake atheists": Hitler, Stalin, Freud, O'Hare, etc. At least I would have seen the consistency in your thought process.
You are a cheap arrogance, now trying to take on the persecuted martyred role. Dude, you will not get any sympathy from me.
I'm not a bully. Bully is defined by one coming on this site and insulting everyone with this founded "fake revelation" that you somehow can prove there is no God.
The tripartite holds--atheist:
1. arrogant--believing in their own pronounced godhead;
2. functioning immorals;
3. blaming God for the pain in their life.
God has not done anything to you. Go look in the mirror.
"Proving He is God is a matter of faith"
And this is the kicker, why should an atheist, a non believer, someone who does not presuppose the validity of christianity just decide to take this religious claim on faith? or anything, rather? In fact its really difficult to. And I think this is where Joshua (and i think many people) mistake a reasonable standard of evidence for stubbornness.
While there may be good evidence to suggest that Jesus did exist and he was a wise teacher, this doesn't support the miracle claims written of Jesus in the bible. There aren't any contemporary sources that attested to any of his miracles. Even so, those sorts of claims require some kind observation not just people writing about them, at least for it to be convincing to people who require more than just text to be convinced of miracles.
Gabriel, this is not how history works. Everything was written down, and nearly everyone who wrote something about someone wrote it down well after the passing of the person. How do we know anything in history happened if all we have is written text? First, the majority of people were illiterate, generally only educated people could read and write. This why scribes were so well paid.
So to set a standard of what you think should be counted is not how things work. You ask for eyewitnesses, but discount the Gospels or the talmudic writing. You cannot set the standard for what is acceptable eyewitness accounts, or what is reliable and what is not. There are people that do this for a living, study these things very closely and have come to a different conclusion.
If we logically break down the evidence, as I had done in an earlier post, it becomes clear that Christ being who He said He is, is far more logical than Him being some "wise man". Do you not find it odd that you selectively embrace what you feel is acceptable evidence? I have taken the evidence as a whole, non-Christian and Christian sources alike, jewish, pagan, and Christian. You have either demeaned or completely denied the Christian evidence. Why do the jews, who were also eyewitnesses, try to explain Christ as a magician? Why didn't they call Him crazy? They knew He was not crazy, and they knew that their followers knew that. So to write him off so easily would not have sufficed for those who may be thinking of being Christian. So, to explain these "miracles" to their people, they described Him as a magician, which is demeaning but logical if you were trying to explain how someone did something pretty amazing.
Had they wrote nothing at all, then that would be suspicious indeed. But, they DID write something, many things actually. Therefore you have still avoided the non-Christian evidence that would infer Christ is something more than a "wise man". And how is it that you can so easily discredit eyewitness accounts? You, 2,000 years later, know more than those who wrote this down?
This is an Orthodox Christian Forum. Please respect the fact that it is meant to edify people but not used as a high school classes with lots of jokes and arguments. Most here come to learn from each other. Let us have peace and love if not please do not write. If my words are not edifying why not keep quite?
I am not happy with what seems to be a lack of moderation on these forums. If ILSM's remarks are not acceptable, then neither is subversion.
You a good man Ioannes and a great Christian. I will make another post later as I have very little time to make my posts.