Background on How to Present the Existence of a Living God to an Atheist
Submitted by babywinter on February 18, 2007 - 12:44am.
English | Fiction | existential-individualism
Atheists believe in science, so we should give them science. According to them, that is the currency they can understand. Pity. I can't list down the whole thing but I'll give a little background which I think can help out:
ATHEISTS AND THEIR LACK OF QUALITIES AS A MAN OF SCIENCE. You know very well that there is no life on Mars, but what you don't know is there is life on Mars. There has been a talk about this in NASA, (including the presence of water there, but I won't discuss about this). So how is it possible, after all this time, a scientific theory which we had kinamulatan been brought to revision just like the scientific beliefs we had in the past? (This includes the famous Geocentric model of the Solar system, the world-is-flat-freaking-Colombus, the transmission of simuli through our neurons without synapses and motors...) This is because science is knowledge, and people love knowledge, and we people have some sort of unending imagination (which supports our uncontentment) on which we would inquire upon, and, given a time, we use Bacon's scientific method to satisfy our inquistiveness. On the subject of God, unluckily, the atheists gave up. Too difficult for them is all I can say. They claim to be scientific, but lack the qualities of a Man of Science should have...The hunger and the perseverance to seek the truth till the end...
THE LIFE ON MARS AND THE LIFE OF PLANTS ON EARTH. In this world, we breathe in oxygen; plants don't. But it doesn't mean that plants don't have life. In other words, life is being proven true by an element, a defining element, which is OXYGEN for us, and CARBON DIOXIDE for plants. Therefore, Life is then considered subjective to the defining element. The thing that proves there is life on Mars is a defining element NASA is trying to figure out. The Mars space contraption that gathered life evidence from the planet, in the 70's and the 80's, had likely killed the living organism it collected. And ho, don't expect that the living organism on Mars act the same way as you do--the same way as you don't expect plants to watch Barney or go to Metrowalk. And ho, and so, don't expect that you think similarly to how the living God thinks. Don't expect your existence as a living human being is similar to the existence of the living God. Atheists are looking at the wrong kind of life, a wrong kind of existence, just like how the obsolete space mariner accidentally misunderstood the living organisms on Mars.
And this is just the beginning. Have you ever asked yourself to go beyond the knowledge you had kinagisnan, beyond the events you had experienced in your life? ^-^
babywinter ^-^
Ooooooalalalala...... Mehrung....... Kikihkih.... :)
The Agnostic Way
Submitted by Sherlock25 on February 23, 2007 - 7:57pm.
Atheists believe that the idea of an omniscient Supreme Being taking care of our own day-to-day lives is absurd. Which to me cannot at all be dismissed. I wouldn't think a god would monitor what food i eat or else I choke, or if I'm chewing my food well or I'll have indigestion, or if the bolus of food swimming down my small intestines get acted by enzymes for proper absorption, or makes sure the undigested material goes to my large intestine, to my colon, anus--- well, I don't want to go that deep. Actually, most scientists are skeptical of a living God because they find it hard to operate on the opposite assumption: their precious objectivity so instrumental in feeding their curiosity to explain the origin of things can tumble down like a house of cards if they start believing in God as the origin of things. Imagine if humankind gave up a long time ago and just explained everything as the work of God. Good thing Socrates came before Jesus and not the other way around.
The thing is, these scientists themeselves cannot ignore the fact that there has to be an origin of things. If we look closely from microscopic to the infinity of the universe, there's a clockwork order in things. Instead of finding chaos, they found a certain order which is quantifiable, fascinating and mysterious. And they have no one to thank for. It's like finding a well-designed, well-built machine with tiny little moving parts making up a beautiful whole, and yet the mechanic is having lunch somewhere.
Now here's my point, never associate Atheism with science. Science did not evolve without God in mind, for most early scientists made most calculations and discoveries with Divinity in mind. Don't associate them with Theism either, because they are the ones doing the hard work for those who readily believe Mike Velarde can make money fall out of the sky. They are the ones trying to find the Engineer or Engineers of Everything you call God, Allah or whatever.
Nothing against you,
Submitted by babywinter on February 24, 2007 - 12:43am.
Nothing against you, Sherlock25, but your atheism approach is too old school and childish. Perhaps you could read jblazarte's commentaries. I think they can help you.
I say it's childish and old school because of the points you have raised: (1) God is omniscient being absurd. Let me define "omniscient" to you? This word means "knowing all things." Do you have any idea what "knowing all things" mean? This means aside from NON-SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE, somebody dwells in SCIENCE too. Since the old school atheists believe that they created god, it would be imperative that the god they created would be non-omniscient in a way that you dismiss NON-SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE. So you see, that statement is only applicable for atheists like you and my old self. It is what we call, subjective.
And also, the most acceptable meaning for God is "somebody/something that is worshipped." In this case, God exists, and the atheists are wrong. Clapton is god. Britney, once. At one point in life, you claim to be a god. Because the definition of an atheist is "believer to no God," I think you should properly identify yourself as an ATHEIST TO AN OMNISCIENT BEING, which is actually a baby atheist stand.
Have you ever wondered why there is a word OMNISCIENT if the essence of that word is not really existing? Have you ever wondered why there's a word God? Hehe. There you go... Atheists and Catholics alike have Selective knowledge.
And why are you telling me not to associate atheism with science, or theism with science? If you want to live on what you have, then it's up to you. If you're contented in your loose universe of uncertainties, just like the bunch of writers out there who kept on trying to "KNOW THEMSELVES", trying to find their places in this universe, then go on. I don't want to be stuck in a babyish knowledge like this with you.
I never expected that most atheists are not open-minded to possibilities. (Well, not all) I can now conclude that Catholics and atheists are not different at all. Saradong-katoliko and saradong-atheist. haha. In this posting experience, it seems that atheism is more of a church doctrine rather than a free thought. Most of you guys are saying the same thing. Well, not everybody, at least.
Let me tell this to you too: I began to doubt atheism's individuality because it sounds like an organized church doctrine to me wherein everybody says the same thing. It's traditional like Catholicism. And according to your points, it can only explain itself, its doubtful existence--since it can't be associated with science nor theism. Where is it associated then? Then there's no point believing it, taking it from your points. You just proved it as a pseudo-knowledge. I bet I can explain atheism persuasively more than you. Irony, isn't it?
Actually, I have been warned. You are one of those atheists who're posers or something. You are like the others who gave atheism a bad name.
Warning: Hazardous Materials
Submitted by Sherlock25 on February 24, 2007 - 2:10am.
I didn't know they changed the meaning of Atheism. I checked NASA, FBI and Playboy but they all said the same thing. Perhaps, you have a wider knowledge on this coz you're older. Oh well, I also date older women. The riper the better, i think is the adage.
Yeah, yeah, yeah I got your point. Especially, the Britney thing. Atheists even have Sunday masses and offer candles and flowers to an Atheistic god and dieties. They even do Atheistic Bible studies and sing Atheistic hymns and all that. It's a whole new religion you know.
Thing is you've mistaken me for something I'm not. I'm an Agnostic. And as far as I'm concerned, any Religion is pseudoknowledge(now look what you've done, I've used your snake-oil selling word) but I'm not dismissing their significance. Atheism, I couldn't care less, but if you've got time perhaps we can discuss its intricacies over candles and wine. Oh wait, forget it. I lied about dating older women.
And if I'm not clear enough: Atheists are idiots. Theists are cowards.
the real thing about atheism
atheism is plagued with patent ambiguities. My father actually professes that he is an atheist but i don't believe him because he fears death. Thought if atheists deny the existence of a God they should not fear death because they should corollarily profess among themselves that life will end up no where else but the four corners of the grave. They should be ascertained of the fact that humans are just food for the worms. Then came a realization that atheists are just purely proud and pedantic people who can't accept among themselves that there is someone or something more superior to their being. Still, we can't blame them. I am very certain that atheism originates from a "corrugated" series of experiences which translate to a behavior/attitude that's not immutable; atheism does not spring from the human spirit. However, we must be patient and rest ourselves to the fact that we can't convince and allow these people to change overnight. . .:)