Still no atheist logic being shown here

[ant]

I was hoping to refrain from saying this. Stephen, the THC is getting to you. You are truly delusional. I've shown how your points are irrefutably fallacious, but you bludgeon onward oblivious to it.

To everyone else, I'm done feeding the troll.

I think this is a fair question for you;

If you are to claim that a person's extraordinary experiences demand extraordinary evidence, where is the extraordinary evidence that most people are deluded about their own experiences?

Don't give me a generic argument about fallible judgements as they pertain to OTHER people's judgements.
Back the claim with evidence, please.

[sonoman]

Please, no diversions with nit-picking semantics. "Logic", derived from "Logos" meaning "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe." -American College Dictionary.

Since sonoman referenced this in another thread, I am linking my response here so as to avoid redundancy-

http://www.booktalk.org/post114264.html#p114264

"Logos" as used by Heraclitus for example cannot be distinguished from the ancient religious viewpoint expressed in Egyptian religion as "Maat" and in Judaism as the "Torah", i.e, the root meaning of the order of the universe was believed to be spiritually based, not materially based. And indeed, Heraclitus's syzygy ideas match those of later Gnostics.

Logical and thinking logically is not the monopoly of atheism. Indeed, atheism is not at all logical because it makes absolutist statements about spiritual phenomena without adequate evidence to do so forgetting that knowledge does not stand still at the atheist time.

[sonoman]

As I've explained before, your arguments are actually undermining your point

while evolutionary behavioral science shows spiritual reception hardwired into the human brain and human beings dealing with spiritual experiences going back 40,000 years, facts still to be explained by you or any atheist here.

The fact that there have been thousands of distinct and necessarily contradictory "spiritual revelations" shows that this must be an extremely unreliable guide to knowledge. They weren't all about Aquarius and the urns, were they? You do acknowledge that all religions can't be true at the same time, right? So how does this prove your point?

The fact is there have been thousands of different explanations for just about everything human beings think and do, religious and non-religious. Therefore your argument cannot be placed solely at religion's doorstep because there's plenty of proof of silly ideas of atheists e.g. the whole Lysenko nonsense where Communist Russian atheists demanded scientific heredity transmission facts conform to Communist ideology.

As for the Aquarius Sign's sterotypical imagery and meaning, well, look at the Celestial Torah Christianity train of evidence showing that Man/Urn/urns/bucket iconic image going back 4000 years with the same theological meaning attached: the baptismal sanctification and consecration of the worthy earthly ruler who obediently follows the Good God who blesses the people with Living Waters, i.e. healing knowledge based on wisdom and compassion. Yes, the Aquarius Sign is most developed in Near Eastern/Mediterranean conception but that's the case with all religious and theosophical concepts when comparing religious belief systems together--the more ancient civilizations developed more traditional lore around their religious belief systems. The remarkable thing is that the Christ/Aquarian symbolism has remained virtually the same for 4000 years.

I am addressing your atheist non-starter idea that you atheists can really state anything with absolute conviction about any complex human behavior because science is still in its infancy and what is unknown today may very well become known in the future.

But you're talking about yourself, not atheists. You're saying it's all about Aquarius. Atheists say you haven't provided the slightest reasoning as to why this should be true. It's because science progresses that "God of the gaps" arguments had to be embarrassingly forgotten.

Of course I'm applying the same logic to my own beliefs. I cannot say for absolute certainty I'm right about the Aquarian Age transition and spiritual transformation in process now. I can't tell how my spiritual missions will eventually turn out either because I'm 69 years old and won't live to see how future generations deal with the spiritual knowledge I bring. But like all who discover new things I have great enthusiasm for what God has led me to to share with all others willing to follow where God has me pointing, e.g. the Christ Aquarius information, so I leave confirmation in the hands of future generations. And already, the tables are turning, e.g. my overthrowing Acharya's and all atheistic mythicist ideas that Christ was just another sun god by bringing all the Christ Aquarius information showing the much better historical fit. And your "God of the gaps" conveniently forgets the God Gene science facts already contradicting atheists beliefs. Atheists like you, Interbane, the rest, are all in denial because you have basically a fundamentalist belief system that cannot face critique without caving into either slander, or diversionary non-answers, e.g. cut-and-past links to more atheist propaganda sites, without ever once just answering my questions straight on.

When am I going to get a straightforward answer to how "Nature" evolves a human brain hardwired to experience and process supposedly non-existent spiritual stimulation. And please, no more "it's all mistaking illusions for reality" as if thousand of year old highly complex theologies could be based on optical illusions or mistaking physical father for the spiritual Force with a Purpose and Personality that governs all existence.

[sonoman]

I was hoping to refrain from saying this. Stephen, the THC is getting to you. You are truly delusional. I've shown how your points are irrefutably fallacious, but you bludgeon onward oblivious to it.

To everyone else, I'm done feeding the troll.

That's all you got, isn't it, Interbane, slander, name-calling, no answers childish name-calling and when pushed for something substantial, all you do is cut-and-paste reliance on atheist propaganda sites, no answers in your own words on your own steam. And NO ANSWERS to my questions starting with the one posted above that I've posted again and again on this thread that you and all atheists continue to dodge. Give your answers to them or admit you don't have any. Or do what you're doing--the childish response, "I'm picking up my marbles and going home because I don't like the way Sonoman plays in our atheist game."

[Dexter]

The fact is there have been thousands of different explanations for just about everything human beings think and do, religious and non-religious. Therefore your argument cannot be placed solely at religion's doorstep because there's plenty of proof of silly ideas of atheists e.g. the whole Lysenko nonsense where Communist Russian atheists demanded scientific heredity transmission facts conform to Communist ideology.

Yes, exactly my point. But scientists don't say, "hey look, humans have done lots of science, so therefore you should believe my science. What are you against evolution or something?" But that's what your argument is. You can't point to the long history of religious claims as evidence for your religious claim.

People keep pointing out the flaws in your arguments, but you don't want to listen.

You might have some better luck in some Bible study groups, or an astrology group or something.

[geo]

I was hoping to refrain from saying this. Stephen, the THC is getting to you. You are truly delusional. I've shown how your points are irrefutably fallacious, but you bludgeon onward oblivious to it.

To everyone else, I'm done feeding the troll.

That's all you got, isn't it, Interbane, slander, name-calling, no answers childish name-calling and when pushed for something substantial, all you do is cut-and-paste reliance on atheist propaganda sites, no answers in your own words on your own steam. And NO ANSWERS to my questions starting with the one posted above that I've posted again and again on this thread that you and all atheists continue to dodge. Give your answers to them or admit you don't have any. Or do what you're doing--the childish response, "I'm picking up my marbles and going home because I don't like the way Sonoman plays in our atheist game."

I've been ignoring this conversation, but I'd be interested in hearing about what the astrotheist belief system—if that's a fair description—has yielded in terms of real world knowledge. Science, for example, has yielded a vaccine against polio, and this can be independently verified, no matter what your belief system is. Even someone who rejects science altogether can be inoculated against polio. So that's what I mean by real world results.

I would argue that the concept of the Holy Trinity is not "real world" because it is meaningless to anyone outside the belief system. There's no kind of evidence to support the existence of a Holy Trinity, thus it cannot be falsified. It's merely something that theologians came up with to rationalize a larger Christian belief system that provides all its context. To anyone outside those beliefs, it sounds like gibberish.

Likewise, your astrotheism beliefs are subjectively meaningful for you, Sonoman, and to others who share your beliefs, but they do not have any objective meaning as science does. The objective value of science is proven again and again, in medicine and technology and in our understanding of the physical world. But your esoteric beliefs are only meaningful to you.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making? And, if you disagree, can you share something that can be shown as true or relevant to those outside your belief system? I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

[sonoman]

The fact is there have been thousands of different explanations for just about everything human beings think and do, religious and non-religious. Therefore your argument cannot be placed solely at religion's doorstep because there's plenty of proof of silly ideas of atheists e.g. the whole Lysenko nonsense where Communist Russian atheists demanded scientific heredity transmission facts conform to Communist ideology.

Yes, exactly my point. But scientists don't say, "hey look, humans have done lots of science, so therefore you should believe my science. What are you against evolution or something?" But that's what your argument is. You can't point to the long history of religious claims as evidence for your religious claim.

People keep pointing out the flaws in your arguments, but you don't want to listen.

You too? Please show me, post the comments that address my questions because they have never been addressed. Only cut-and-paste atheist repertoire of atheists reasons why theism is nonsense and that doesn't cut it, doesn't answer the specific questions. You do it then, if you think the flaws in my argument can be toppled. Just answer one of the questions for me: how does Nature evolve human brains to register and respond to spiritual stimulation when there's nothing there to stimulate anything as you atheists claim. Give us an answer to this question without resorting to silly inappropriate "answers" like people confusing optical illusions for this or that when no optical illusion seen by human beings created religions lasting thousands of years, religions filled with great complexity while atheists try to reduce religious consciousness to temporary insanity, people confusing God with Mr. Potatohead.

You might have some better luck in some Bible study groups, or an astrology group or something.

I came here because I got an invite. I came here hoping this time around to find more logical thought given to spiritual consciousness but part of me, (you can verify it on my website) knows it's stupid of me to think fundamentalist atheists are going to behave any better than fundamentalist churchies. I can't get atheists to answer my questions here. They do what you did--post a few links to atheist anti-theist websites and atheist half-assed science reports on religious thinking which they, like you, haven't any experience in so naturally arrive at wrong conclusions, and you all think that by posting these wrong conclusions or referring to them, none of them addressing my specific questions, you've somehow "answered" these questions when you guys haven't even begun to address them. You can't argue with closed minds in denial about science facts or lack of logic and that's the case with atheists here--refusal to acknowledge brain science findings that contradict the atheist belief system, and refusal to understand only agnosticism is scientifically valid, atheism is not a scientific philosophy but a religiously held one that can only be held by blocking out information that doesn't support the belief system.

[Vishnu]

"Logos" as used by Heraclitus for example cannot be distinguished from the ancient religious viewpoint expressed in Egyptian religion as "Maat" and in Judaism as the "Torah", i.e, the root meaning of the order of the universe was believed to be spiritually based, not materially based. And indeed, Heraclitus's syzygy ideas match those of later Gnostics. Logical and thinking logically is not the monopoly of atheism. Indeed, atheism is not at all logical because it makes absolutist statements about spiritual phenomena without adequate evidence to do so forgetting that knowledge does not stand still at the atheist time.

Nice pedantic info, I guess, but has nothing to do with my post. Heraclitus far post-dates Homer, who I had referenced one example in my post. Moreover, I never addressed anything about whether or not his usage or your usage of "logos" was "wrong" or that logos couldn't be used for spiritual ideas (in fact, I explicitly stated admitted the opposite). All I addressed was your error that such a definition was "the root" meaning. It was not. That was a later development.

But again, this is something I've already addressed in the other thread, so-
http://www.booktalk.org/post114298.html#p114298

[Chris OConnor]

Everyone,

It is very helpful if you include the name of the person you are quoting.

When you copy and paste text, select the text, and then click the "quote" button to place the selected text within a quote bubble, you're not done. There is one more helpful step to make it clear to readers who you are quoting. Within the quote text go to the quote code where you see

Code: Select all

[quote]whatever you are quoting[/quote]

Now add =Joe Smith or =Sarah Johnson or the name of whomever you are quoting directing after the first word quote. Do it exactly as instructed. Don't add spaces before or after the =Name. So it should look like...

Code: Select all

[quote="Bob"]Here is the text that Bob said.[/quote]

[quote="Sarah"]Here is the text that Sarah said.[/quote]

If you work on learning this technique for quoting it will make your posts more understandable.

Chris