Biggest Lie You've Been Told

[blackbird]

Just now, Yakuda said:

Of course he is talking about salvation. 

Right we arent saved or  justified by works....ALONE just like we arent saved or justified by faith alone. Abraham didnt sit at home. He did the will of the father just like Matt tells us. Why do you embrace blindness? Is it easier for you?

You are obviously not taking in what Romans 4 says.  The passage is not talking at all about the need for works.  It is clearly condemning the idea that works are required for justification.  It is you who are saying Abraham did something at home.  That is not mentioned and contrary to what it says.  It clearly says works would not justify Abraham or anyone. Nothing more to say about it now.  

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

You are obviously not taking in what Romans 4 says.  The passage is not talking at all about the need for works.  It is clearly condemning the idea that works are required for justification.  It is you who are saying Abraham did something at home.  That is not mentioned and contrary to what it says.  It clearly says works would not justify Abraham or anyone. Nothing more to say about it now.  

but Abraham DID works he did the will of the father. Whats wrong with you? If works are not required for justification then James is contradicting Paul. You want it both ways. thats how you people make your perversion work.

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, Yakuda said:

but Abraham DID works he did the will of the father. Whats wrong with you? If works are not required for justification then James is contradicting Paul. You want it both ways. thats how you people make your perversion work.

James is talking about works being necessary once a person becomes a Christian to demonstrate to the world he is a Christian.  But works cannot be a part of becoming a Christian which can happen at the moment one believes in Jesus Christ.

If works are necessary to become a Christian, please tell me how much works and what kind is necessary and tell me at what point one becomes a Christian.  All the people Jesus talked to who believed in him became Christian the moment they believed.  So how did works have anything to do with becoming a Christian?

Edited March 2 by blackbird

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, Yakuda said:

If works are not required for justification then James is contradicting Paul. You want it both ways. thats how you people make your perversion work.

quote

"We have KNOWN and believed the love which God hath to us" (1John 4:16); .

or with Paul,

"I am PERSUADED that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:38,39)

But this no man can ever say, who "goes about to establish his own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), who seeks, in any shape, to be justified by works. Such assurance, such comfort, can come only from a simple and believing reliance on the free, unmerited grace of God, given in and along with Christ, the unspeakable gift of the Father's love. It was this that made Luther's spirit to be, as he himself declared, "as free as a flower of the field," when, single and alone, he went up to the Diet of Worms, to confront all the prelates and potentates there convened to condemn the doctrine which he held. It was this that in every age made the martyrs go with such sublime heroism not only to prison but to death. It is this that emancipates the soul, restores the true dignity of humanity, and cuts up by the roots all the imposing pretensions of priestcraft. It is this only that can produce a life of loving, filial, hearty obedience to the law and commandments of God; and that, when nature fails, and when the king of terrors is at hand, can enable poor, guilty sons of men, with the deepest sense of unworthiness, yet to say,

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord" (1Corinthians 15:55,57).    unquote

Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org)

If you think you can earn the love and acceptance of God by works, you are only fooling yourself.  

This false idea may have come from the ancient Babylonian religion as this book delves into.  One can easily see it being a common belief among false religions of the world.

"3  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3 KJV

"

The worshippers of Nimrod and his queen were looked upon as regenerated and purged from sin by baptism, which baptism received its virtue from the sufferings of these two great Babylonian divinities. But yet in regard to justification (earning God's acceptance and love through human effort), the Chaldean doctrine was that it was by works and merits of men themselves that they must be justified and accepted of God. The following remarks of Christie in his observations appended to Ouvaroff's Eleusinian Mysteries, show that such was the case:

"Mr. Ouvaroff has suggested that one of the great objects of the Mysteries was the presenting to fallen man the means of his return to God. These means were the cathartic virtues--(i.e., the virtues by which sin is removed), by the exercise of which a corporeal life was to be vanquished. Accordingly the Mysteries were termed Teletae, 'perfections,' because they were supposed to induce a perfectness of life. Those who were purified by them were styled Teloumenoi and Tetelesmenoi, that is, 'brought...to perfection,' which depended on the exertions of the individual."

Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org)

[Yakuda]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

James is talking about works being necessary once a person becomes a Christian to demonstrate to the world he is a Christian.  But works cannot be a part of becoming a Christian which can happen at the moment one believes in Jesus Christ.

If works are necessary to become a Christian, please tell me how much works and what kind is necessary and tell me at what point one becomes a Christian.  All the people Jesus talked to who believed in him became Christian the moment they believed.  So how did works have anything to do with becoming a Christian?

But works are part of becoming Christian as you have been told but you ignore. 

Jesus tells us those that do the will of the father will be saved. If faith ALONE saves then I can do whatever I want right? You can't have it both ways but you people do want it. It doesn't work like that and don't even try the "true" Christian bs 

 

[Yakuda]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

quote

"We have KNOWN and believed the love which God hath to us" (1John 4:16); .

or with Paul,

"I am PERSUADED that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:38,39)

But this no man can ever say, who "goes about to establish his own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), who seeks, in any shape, to be justified by works. Such assurance, such comfort, can come only from a simple and believing reliance on the free, unmerited grace of God, given in and along with Christ, the unspeakable gift of the Father's love. It was this that made Luther's spirit to be, as he himself declared, "as free as a flower of the field," when, single and alone, he went up to the Diet of Worms, to confront all the prelates and potentates there convened to condemn the doctrine which he held. It was this that in every age made the martyrs go with such sublime heroism not only to prison but to death. It is this that emancipates the soul, restores the true dignity of humanity, and cuts up by the roots all the imposing pretensions of priestcraft. It is this only that can produce a life of loving, filial, hearty obedience to the law and commandments of God; and that, when nature fails, and when the king of terrors is at hand, can enable poor, guilty sons of men, with the deepest sense of unworthiness, yet to say,

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord" (1Corinthians 15:55,57).    unquote

Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org)

If you think you can earn the love and acceptance of God by works, you are only fooling yourself.  

This false idea may have come from the ancient Babylonian religion as this book delves into.  One can easily see it being a common belief among false religions of the world.

"3  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3 KJV

"

The worshippers of Nimrod and his queen were looked upon as regenerated and purged from sin by baptism, which baptism received its virtue from the sufferings of these two great Babylonian divinities. But yet in regard to justification (earning God's acceptance and love through human effort), the Chaldean doctrine was that it was by works and merits of men themselves that they must be justified and accepted of God. The following remarks of Christie in his observations appended to Ouvaroff's Eleusinian Mysteries, show that such was the case:

"Mr. Ouvaroff has suggested that one of the great objects of the Mysteries was the presenting to fallen man the means of his return to God. These means were the cathartic virtues--(i.e., the virtues by which sin is removed), by the exercise of which a corporeal life was to be vanquished. Accordingly the Mysteries were termed Teletae, 'perfections,' because they were supposed to induce a perfectness of life. Those who were purified by them were styled Teloumenoi and Tetelesmenoi, that is, 'brought...to perfection,' which depended on the exertions of the individual."

Can God's love and salvation be EARNED? (thejournal.org)

AGAIN volume dies not equal accuracy but you don't know what else to do do you? Being a trained isn't a good look for you. 

Appealing to something other than scripture also diminishes your position but you don't seem to care. Trained monkeys usually don't 

Edited March 2 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

But this no man can ever say, who "goes about to establish his own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), who seeks, in any shape, to be justified by works.

Popery can not save anyone.  If is a false religion.   Tryin to work your way to heaven is a losing proposition.  

"3  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3

You think your own works can save you.  That is a futile effort.  You still have not answered the question.

How many works or what kind will save you?  How does one know he is saved and going to heaven?

What about the fictitious place called Purgatory?  Do you believe in that too?

If one believes he must atone for his own sins or pay for them somehow, he is obviously not believing the gospel that Jesus Christ paid for all sin.  

Why have priests if Christ paid for it all once for all?  That means the Mass is a scam.  Nobody can offer anything to atone for sins.  Have you read Hebrews?  Doesn't look like it if you are still believing in the false religious system.

"12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. "  Hebrews 9:12 KJV

"25  Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26  For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. "  Hebrews 9:25 KJV

This means the priesthood is meaningless.  It has no purpose and is deceiving you.

Edited March 2 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Popery can not save anyone.  If is a false religion.   Tryin to work your way to heaven is a losing proposition.  

"3  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  Romans 10:3

You think your own works can save you.  That is a futile effort.  You still have not answered the question.

How many works or what kind will save you?  How does one know he is saved and going to heaven?

What about the fictitious place called Purgatory?  Do you believe in that too?

If one believes he must atone for his own sins or pay for them somehow, he is obviously not believing the gospel that Jesus Christ paid for all sin.  

Why have priests if Christ paid for it all once for all?  That means the Mass is a scam.  Nobody can offer anything to atone for sins.  Have you read Hebrews?  Doesn't look like it if you are still believing in the false religious system.

"12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. "  Hebrews 9:12 KJV

"25  Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26  For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. "  Hebrews 9:25 KJV

This means the priesthood is meaningless.  It has no purpose and is deceiving you.

You should change the subject. Heresy is bad. 

You like appealing to non biblical sources even though you claim to believe sola scriptura so cite a source from the first century that supports your heresy. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

You should change the subject. Heresy is bad. 

You like appealing to non biblical sources even though you claim to believe sola scriptura so cite a source from the first century that supports your heresy. 

There have always been false religions that believed that man was in control and could work his way to heaven somehow.

That is why you have a different interpretation on some verses in the Bible.  But there are countless questions I don't think you can answer.

I looked at an online Catholic catechism and was surprised to see the vastness of it.  I recall when the cathechism was a small booklet that one could flip through in a few minutes.  But the one that I saw online is vast.  

On the subject of baptism, it seems to say baptism makes one Christian.  There is another unbiblical claim.

[blackbird]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

You like appealing to non biblical sources even though you claim to believe sola scriptura so cite a source from the first century that supports your heresy. 

I do believe in sola scriptura.

sola scriptura deflnition :   Sola scriptura (Latin for ' by scripture alone ') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.   -  wikipedia

The definitions says what I believe.  Scripture is the sole infallible source.   That does not mean a person cannot read what various theologians and others believe about a topic, doctrine, or parts of the Bible.  The term "sola scriptura" does not imply or mean one cannot read commentaries or articles on Biblical subjects.  You seem to think sola scriptura means a person can read nothing else or quote nothing else.  The only thing sola scriptura means is that the Bible is the infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.  That means other things can be read and considered but they are not to be considered as infallible.  Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to read or quote what others say about the Bible.  There are some verses that are not always easy to understand and it sometimes helps to read what others have to say who may have spent a great deal of time studying a topic in the Bible.

[Yakuda]

On 3/2/2024 at 5:53 PM, blackbird said:

There have always been false religions that believed that man was in control and could work his way to heaven somehow.

That is why you have a different interpretation on some verses in the Bible.  But there are countless questions I don't think you can answer.

I looked at an online Catholic catechism and was surprised to see the vastness of it.  I recall when the cathechism was a small booklet that one could flip through in a few minutes.  But the one that I saw online is vast.  

On the subject of baptism, it seems to say baptism makes one Christian.  There is another unbiblical claim.

You're is the false religion. Quote someone before Luther that believes in sola ride or sola scriptura.

As to baptism "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16. That's Jesus talking but I should listen to you a heretic and not Jesus? 

Jesus, not me is, saying belief is necessary but it's not sufficient for being save because Jesus said believe AND be baptized. You people are heretics.

Now your going to copy and paste hundreds of passages that the monkey trainers gave you and because of that I'm supposed to ignore Jesus like you do. You ignore words of Jesus. You ignore the words of Jesus. You ignore the words of Jesus. 

[SkyHigh]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:59 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Well that’s the existentialist idea that there’s no inherent meaning or purpose in the universe except what you artifice, itself a self-deception.  That’s indeed the prevailing post-modern worldview that dominates modern philosophy from Sartre to Foucault to Derrida.  The problem with that premise is that with no belief in a soul or higher authority than the state, humanity becomes captive to it.  That’s the idea of the atheist materialist state we saw in the Soviet Union.  Sartre was a Marxist, but much of what is putting our freedom and democracy under threat is basically veiled Marxism or cultural Marxism.  It means that all that exist are groups vying for power in what is ultimately a class struggle (now in some cases with races tied to the oppressed-oppressor binary).

The solution offered up is some kind of collectivist redistribution scheme in a radical attempt to give everyone equal outcomes. It ignores human nature, pretends that utopia can be imposed, and tears apart the idea of individual liberty and self-determination inherent to democracy.  The notion of the sanctity of the individual is a spiritual notion, the idea that one has basic God-given natural rights that no state has the power to remove.

When you remove the notion of the sacred, anything becomes possible.  The moral collapse and self-destruction of Western civilization is very much tied to the devaluation of the individual.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but will admit being confused with the references to Marxism, as I don't see the relevance of one's political position to their metaphysical views 

I will confess a certain ignorance to philosophy particularly metaphysics, as a pragmatist I personally don't understand the need to ask myself questions to which there are no answers.

The idea of an ultimate/higher power for our moral intuition to me is unnecessary. First, by simply reading different religious texts it clearly shows that they are not compatible, ie: a works religion (Hindu) vs. one of faith (Christianity). Second, Altruism can be found solely through selfishness, I don't like being harmed so I won't harm others. Our evolutionary development has hard wired us into having empathy. 

No god needed 

[SkyHigh]

On 2/18/2024 at 3:43 PM, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  I defined it like anyone would with their own words.  There is no rule that says I must define evolution like a biologist would in order to dispute it or reject it.  Your line of reasoning is absurd to begin with.

You are just trying to play word games which is nonsense.  You don't convince anyone of anything that way.

Evolution is simply a theory of how life came to be what it is today.  It is unproven and has been rejected by many scientists.

First off, calling you ignorant is not an insult, ignorance is simply defined as a lack of knowledge or information and you have demonstrated that fact in abundance. The amount of things I or anyone else is ignorant of are astronomical.

No , you can't just make up your own definitions to complex ideas then debunk your own nonsense. That called making a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy.

I know you don't understand the theory of evolution because you use terms like Darwinism. Since Charlie documented his birds, we've discovered genetics, the mathematics of quantifiable analysis of large populations, ERVs, etc...

Calling the theory of evolution Darwinism is like calling the theory of gravity Newtonism, or calling displacement theory Archimedism.

In fact you still have yet to summarize the theory of evolution into anything that even gets close to what the scientists that have studied this for years would use.

In conclusion if you're not even willing to look into what the other side is actually saying, maybe do a little research or just don't speak on the subject.

But again thanks for helping convert more people to atheism.

Edited March 8 by SkyHigh

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but will admit being confused with the references to Marxism, as I don't see the relevance of one's political position to their metaphysical views 

I will confess a certain ignorance to philosophy particularly metaphysics, as a pragmatist I personally don't understand the need to ask myself questions to which there are no answers.

The idea of an ultimate/higher power for our moral intuition to me is unnecessary. First, by simply reading different religious texts it clearly shows that they are not compatible, ie: a works religion (Hindu) vs. one of faith (Christianity). Second, Altruism can be found solely through selfishness, I don't like being harmed so I won't harm others. Our evolutionary development has hard wired us into having empathy. 

No god needed 

There's a lot wrong in that last paragraph. The others too but that last one is a whopper. How did you come about dividing religions between works and faith? 

If you don't like being harmed that has absolutely nothing to do with how you treat others. It's funny how every atheist I've met uses this "golden rule" argument yet they are all products of a society rooted in judeo christian values. Beyond that history is replete with examples of human treating other humans in ways they sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated. 

If empathy is hard wired in us you have a lot of work on in your hands to prove that.  Also with regards to empathy can you show how empathy was, is and can be instrumental in the evolution of a species. 

Edited March 8 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

First off, calling you ignorant is not an insult, ignorance is simply defined as a lack of knowledge or information and you have demonstrated that fact in abundance. The amount of things I or anyone else is ignorant of are astronomical.

No , you can't just make up your own definitions to complex ideas then debunk your own nonsense. That called making a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy.

I know you don't understand the theory of evolution because you use terms like Darwinism. Since Charlie documented his birds, we've discovered genetics, the mathematics of quantifiable analysis of large populations, ERVs, etc...

Calling the theory of evolution Darwinism is like calling the theory of gravity Newtonism, or calling displacement theory Archimedism.

In fact you still have yet to summarize the theory of evolution into anything that even gets close to what the scientists that have studied this for years would use.

In conclusion if you're not even willing to look into what the other side is actually saying, maybe do a little research or just don't speak on the subject.

But again thanks for helping convert more people to atheism.

 I am not into word games.  You don't know anything about me or what I know.  

I believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ.  I have also read some good materials on evolution versus creation.  I also heard a five evening slide show presentation by Dr. Philip Stott, a mathematician/scientist who has extensive knowledge on the subject and has spoken to conferences in different countries on the topic.

You can find his youtube videos by putting Dr. Philip Stott in a search window.

  I also read a book called Darwin's Universe: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee.  You need to read that book.  It is very good.  You can get some of these books on Amazon.  Another is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M.  Another book by Philip Stott is Vital Questions.  You can also search the internet for countless articles.   I don't spend a whole lot of time on this now because I have other priorities.  But if you want to know more, there are lots of resources.  By the way Darwinism is more a religion than a science.  Evolution is not supported by science and has been rejected by some scientists.

The Bible makes it clear.  " 36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. "   John 3:36 KJV

I would suggest you do some studying before you commit yourself more into the atheist position.  There is a lot to the subject which you have not even begun to consider.  Being on the wrong side of God will get you a lost eternity so it is a serious matter, probably the most serious subject in your life.  

Not everyone is elect or given the grace to believe. But there are people in the world who try to help you by giving you the gospel of salvation.  Just insulting them is not a good sign.  A better attitude would be to try to keep calm and discuss things rationally and study the issues from all angles.

There are lots of books around and endless videos and articles on the question of creation versus evolution at the website creation.com

The book "Darwin's Universe" has a good definition of Darwinism.

"Darwinism is a belief in the meaningless of existence".  That sounds about right.

 

Edited March 8 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

First off, calling you ignorant is not an insult, ignorance is simply defined as a lack of knowledge or information and you have demonstrated that fact in abundance. The amount of things I or anyone else is ignorant of are astronomical.

No , you can't just make up your own definitions to complex ideas then debunk your own nonsense. That called making a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy.

I know you don't understand the theory of evolution because you use terms like Darwinism. Since Charlie documented his birds, we've discovered genetics, the mathematics of quantifiable analysis of large populations, ERVs, etc...

Calling the theory of evolution Darwinism is like calling the theory of gravity Newtonism, or calling displacement theory Archimedism.

In fact you still have yet to summarize the theory of evolution into anything that even gets close to what the scientists that have studied this for years would use.

In conclusion if you're not even willing to look into what the other side is actually saying, maybe do a little research or just don't speak on the subject.

But again thanks for helping convert more people to atheism.

You dont seem particularly skilled at converting anyone to atheism so it might as well fall to someone else. 

Picking up on this empathy thing if I was the biggest baddest ahole in the neighborhood and I manipulated people into doing whatever I wanted on what basis would you argue I shouldn't do that? Should I not do that if I am the biggest baddest while in the neighborhood ? 

[Yakuda]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 I am not into word games.  You don't know anything about me or what I know.  

I believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ.  I have also read some good materials on evolution versus creation.  I also heard a five evening slide show presentation by Dr. Philip Stott, a mathematician/scientist who has extensive knowledge on the subject and has spoken to conferences in different countries on the topic.  I also read a book called Darwin's Universe: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee.  You need to read that book.  It is very good.  You can get some of these books on Amazon.  Another is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M.  Another book by Philip Stott is Vital Questions.  You can also search the internet for countless articles.   I don't spend a whole lot of time on this now because I have other priorities.  But if you want to know more, there are lots of resources.  By the way Darwinism is more a religion than a science.  Evolution is not supported by science and has been rejected by some scientists.

The Bible makes it clear.  " 36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. "   John 3:36 KJV

I would suggest you do some studying before you commit yourself more into the atheist position.  There is a lot to the subject which you have not even begun to consider.  Being on the wrong side of God will get you a lost eternity so it is a serious matter, probably the most serious subject in your life.  

Not everyone is elect or given the grace to believe. But there are people in the world who try to help you by giving you the gospel of salvation.  Just insulting them is not a good sign.  A better attitude would be to try to keep calm and discuss things rationally and study the issues from all angles.

There are lots of books around and endless videos and articles on the question of creation versus evolution at the website creation.com

The book "Darwin's Universe" has a good definition of Darwinism.

"Darwinism is a belief in the meaningless of existence".  That sounds about right.

 

You may believe in Jesus but its been shown that you just dont listen to him. Well I suppose it's more accurate to say you listen to some things he says but not others. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

I know you don't understand the theory of evolution because you use terms like Darwinism.

No, that is not correct.  Darwinism is a very apt term because the theory was invented by Darwin.  Hence Darwinism.

Simple logic.

But you should really study the subject evolution versus creation rather than getting hung up on the word "Darwinism".  When I say study, I don't mean only studying from the evolutionist's side, but also study from knowledgeable creationists as well.

I will ask you one question that Professor Philip Stott asks:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?

Edited March 8 by blackbird

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but will admit being confused with the references to Marxism, as I don't see the relevance of one's political position to their metaphysical views 

I will confess a certain ignorance to philosophy particularly metaphysics, as a pragmatist I personally don't understand the need to ask myself questions to which there are no answers.

The idea of an ultimate/higher power for our moral intuition to me is unnecessary. First, by simply reading different religious texts it clearly shows that they are not compatible, ie: a works religion (Hindu) vs. one of faith (Christianity). Second, Altruism can be found solely through selfishness, I don't like being harmed so I won't harm others. Our evolutionary development has hard wired us into having empathy. 

No god needed 

But the religious impulse is also hard-wired, not just in the obvious ways of people going to church and thumping the Bible, but in the sense that we conduct ourselves teleologically, with higher goals and purposes in mind. We do this because our consciousness conceives of possibilities that we first imagine then create.  We can conceive of ideal lifestyles, ideal action, etc.

Why should anyone do anything of purpose if there is no purpose?

Why live at all?  “To be or not to be?”

We persist because, though we may not have all the answers, we can seek them and aspire to better ways of living and doing and thinking.  God is the idea of the perfect, the Word.   When you take away the idea of the perfect or the pure or the sacred, we are nothing more than machines, not unlike computers.  We are cogs in wheels, and Marxism or Materialism has always taken the form of treating people like expendable tools whose value lies only in membership in the collective, since there’s nothing underpinning the value of individuals, no soul.

Edited March 8 by Zeitgeist

[SkyHigh]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

How did you come about dividing religions between works and faith?

By reading religious texts, for example the Vedas speak about every action in this physical life will have consequences on your next physical life or reincarnation (Works) , while the Bible teaches the ONLY way for your physical body to get to the next level is believing/accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour,(Faith )this life is but rags as the book says

 

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

golden rule" argument yet they are all products of a society rooted in judeo christian values

Confucius said "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself "  around 500 BCE.

First Judeo-Christian is a modern term coined to fight fascism in the 19 hundreds. Second, it's just one of the multitude of religious that have appropriated the evolutionary social behaviors that produce the best results, ie: humanism 

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Also with regards to empathy can you show how empathy was, is and can be instrumental in the evolution of a species. 

I think I already did but here goes. Lets go back to basics, if I punch someone in the face without the prior knowledge of what the consequences and effects might be, but I have empathy, I will be able to see that I've caused the other person pain/harm ,and not wanting said pain/harm inflicted on me I will refrain from punching others 

[SkyHigh]

56 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

But the religious impulse is also hard-wired, not just in the obvious ways of people going to church and thumping the Bible, but in the sense that we conduct ourselves teleologically, with higher goals and purposes in mind. We do this because our consciousness conceives of possibilities that we first imagine then create.  We can conceive of ideal lifestyles, ideal action, etc.

Why should anyone do anything of purpose if there is no purpose?

Why live at all?  “To be or not to be?”

We persist because, though we may not have all the answers, we can seek them and aspire to better ways of living and doing and thinking.  God is the idea of the perfect, the Word.   When you take away the idea of the perfect or the pure or the sacred, we are nothing more than machines, not unlike computers.  We are cogs in wheels, and Marxism or Materialism has always taken the form of treating people like expendable tools whose value lies only in membership in the collective, since there’s nothing underpinning the value of individuals, no soul.

I agree that the want to understand the big questions like the "purpose of life" is hardwired but I believe the concept of God is just a easy out to explain things our feeble minds can't comprehend 

On the "idea" of God I would consider myself an igtheist in that I find it entirely incoherent, as far as the god concepts I've been presented I would consider myself a hard atheist even antitheist depending on the religion.

I also agree we should always seek answers on better ways of living and doing and thinking, but I think we should look inward and not to some unfalsifiable entity.

I don't believe that the god as defined in the Bible is a moral being. I think humanism that has no concern about which god you pray but to how you interact with society is a much better way to find the solutions to the issues we agree on.

[SkyHigh]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, that is not correct.  Darwinism is a very apt term because the theory was invented by Darwin.  Hence Darwinism.

Simple logic.

But you should really study the subject evolution versus creation rather than getting hung up on the word "Darwinism".  When I say study, I don't mean only studying from the evolutionist's side, but also study from knowledgeable creationists as well.

I will ask you one question that Professor Philip Stott asks:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?

You're proving my point, you're using someone with Zero scientific training to debunk science. My mechanic is great but I don't go to him for medical advice.

Show me an evolutionary biologists that supports your conclusions 

 

Edited March 8 by SkyHigh

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I agree that the want to understand the big questions like the "purpose of life" is hardwired but I believe the concept of God is just a easy out to explain things our feeble minds can't comprehend 

On the "idea" of God I would consider myself an igtheist in that I find it entirely incoherent, as far as the god concepts I've been presented I would consider myself a hard atheist even antitheist depending on the religion.

I also agree we should always seek answers on better ways of living and doing and thinking, but I think we should look inward and not to some unfalsifiable entity.

I don't believe that the god as defined in the Bible is a moral being. I think humanism that has no concern about which god you pray but to how you interact with society is a much better way to find the solutions to the issues we agree on.

You’re dumbing down the spiritual and talking about bearded sky gods.  Simply, there are answers we don’t have because of our imperfection.  You may not believe there’s a creator, but it’s no less a matter of faith to say there is no creator as there is one, because it’s unverifiable.  That’s where religion comes in, where science ends and faith begins.

Edited March 8 by Zeitgeist

[SkyHigh]

5 hours ago, Yakuda said:

You dont seem particularly skilled at converting anyone to atheism

I'm not looking to convert anyone to anything, I'm all about live and let live. I just think discussions should be based on fact

 

5 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Picking up on this empathy thing if I was the biggest baddest ahole in the neighborhood and I manipulated people into doing whatever I wanted on what basis would you argue I shouldn't do that? Should I not do that if I am the biggest baddest while in the neighborhood ? 

It's funny your bully story sounds like you're describing the god of the Bible.

But I digress, Inherently there may be nothing wrong with it, but non sociopaths with empathy will see that you're causing harm and then the whole neighborhood, one dude with a big stick or a peace officer will come and take care of you. We call those laws, no god needed 

Edited March 9 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re dumbing down the spiritual and talking about bearded sky gods.  Simply, there are answers we don’t have because of our imperfection.  You may not believe there’s a creator, but it’s no less a matter of faith to say there is no creator as there is one, because it’s unverifiable.  That’s where religion comes in, where science ends and faith begins.

I never said anything about an imaginary sky fairy, I said god is unfalsifiable, there is a huge difference and was in no way ment to be derogatory.

You're right we don't know if there is a creator or not and I will never say that anyone should not have the right to proclaim either. I personally only accept what can be quantified, tangible, known to affect our reality. I don't justify my morals on scientific faith, that concept of scientific faith is oxymoronic in its self.

We agree virtually everything about the way the universe functions, the only difference is theists add another entity to explain what we haven't yet understood. Which is the complete opposite of Occam's razor.

In more pragmatic ways can you explain to me why you think you need God?