Calling All Atheists

[Emproph]

Let's just dive right in...

Without the actual belief in eternal security, there’s no way to express the belief in eternal security – 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

Unlike: ♪ Jo Dee Messina – Delicious Surprise ♪

To me, that is an expression of infinity, God, Love, Heaven. At this point in human history there are a million of those. Just as brilliant, just at beautiful and just as inspiring.

Save the religious and spiritual specifics, logically speaking, the idea of eternal security/heaven COULD ONLY be incoming information, because the logic of it dictates that Love (God) had to exist before the idea of it could be expressed.

It is the idea that only sense can come from sense. Only love could make love, as opposed to being the product of some 'random nothing.'

So, only sense can create or ‘make’ sense. Simply speaking, things-always-come-from-somewhere.

If love makes the most sense of all our lives, including the lives of a-theists, then it is the security of not only certainty that we all seek, but the best idea of certainty.

Even if that means giving up the confusion of God/heaven in order to be certain to love others as yourself (for the best result).

Atheist shmathiest at that point, Love is the operator.


So all ye atheists, what am I missing? Not that I have any real desire to convert you, I’m just consumed with the notion that I should be able to.

I’m serious


PS, and believe me, the irony of an egomaniacal Christian is not lost on me...


PPS, this is it.

Even if one is an atheist and you can understand what it means to believe in God, you can still never believe that a god created an atheist. Somehow I’m trying to suggest that only a god could create the thought of a god creating an atheist.

Is anybody seeing what I’m trying to say? The idea of creation has to come before the idea of nothing. “Nothing” not only does not create, the concept of it is in itself an illusion and does not exist.

The concept of “nothing” in and of itself had to be specifically designed and “created.”

an atheist can never believe in a god who believes in an atheist. Is that not the one defining thought that is off limits?

[Emproph]

Train - Calling All Angels

[Alecto]

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).


As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).

As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it.

I totally agree with you. While my own life would feel pretty meaningless with out my relationship to God, I also know there was a time that I also considered myself agnostic. My own understanding is that we're all made in the image of God, whether we know that, or acknowledge that, doesn't change the fact that we are.

As I see it, people too often seem to have this need to focus on what divides us rather than acknowledging the simple fact that we are all united in a great oneness.

kara

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).

That’s what I think I’m trying to say, we all love the same. But that the idea of love had to come before the idea of a God.

I’m trying to establish the connection between the known logic of love and the supposed ethereal idea of God.

I think there's a way to make it "palpable"

(or at the very least I'm determined to think that... )

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Let's just dive right in...

Without the actual belief in eternal security, there’s no way to express the belief in eternal security – 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

So all ye atheists, what am I missing? Not that I have any real desire to convert you, I’m just consumed with the notion that I should be able to.


PPS, this is it.

Even if one is an atheist and you can understand what it means to believe in God, you can still never believe that a god created an atheist. ?[/B]

Patrick, ya know I love ya. Right?

The above is treading the proverbial thin ice. I really have to dispute the implication that atheists are not quite smart (you said even if an atheist is "smart enough" basically, to get what you're talking about.) The atheists I've known are about the most brilliant people I've EVER met.

When I called myself atheist I knew that I came from and would return to something that, for lack of appropriate words, I will describe as adhering to your "eternal security." It was because of that certainty that I knew this "God dude" who I kept hearing described in dismal terms flatly did not exist.

I hear you saying that someone who believes in God will always produce superior "fruits" to someone who does not. So tell me, darlin' E, how the guys who flew airplanes into the Trade Center a handful of years ago because they believed God would reward them have produced "fruit" superior to my atheist friend who, while maintaining a singing career, a marriage, and raising several little girls, has devoted most of his adult life to peace work and to building bridges between feuding faith communities, all out of his vision for the beloved community. Explain me that, Emproph.

I'm not with you on the "ideas" thing, again. I take it what I've gotten from your words is not what you intended to convey. Try again??

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger that that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

Ok. I'm name dropping here, but having worked with Jonathan Miller , I beg to differ. A more creative atheist you will never meet. He was wont to gleefully pull out his wallet to show you pictures of his grandchildren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller)

And speaking of things artistic- which seems part and parcel of fruitfulness- I have always been struck by the lack of artistry on the part of conservatives- something I witnessed (no pun intended) during my time spent in the Assemblies of God. Yes. There was abundance of belief in God. But there was also fear and distrust of "Art" and "Music" insofar that it did not serve that religion's evangelistic leanings. I have always thought this to be something of an irony. One was supposed to evangelize the world, yet not be contaminated by it. One could be a professional musician, yet this was not enough: one had to be a musician for Christ.

I have known more than several operatic singers who- as conservative Christians- had misgivings about singing roles that ran counter to their 'morality'. As such, they don't/didn't make for superior artists. Why? They were/are self-conscious and uptight. They equate acting 'like' a certain character with 'being' that character (which is not unlike how they see gay persons). In short: everything is black and white with them. And the world of art- the physical manifestation of imagination, of joy, depair and love- is anything but black and white.

Yes. It is true that the church- historically speaking- has had hand in creating, furthering and nuturing art and music. But those days are long behind us. That ended with 18th Century Enlightenment.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I have known more than several operatic singers who- as conservative Christians- had misgivings about singing roles that ran counter to their 'morality'. As such, they don't/didn't make for superior artists. Why? They were/are self-conscious and uptight. They equate acting 'like' a certain character with 'being' that character (which is not unlike how they see gay persons). In short: everything is black and white with them. And the world of art- the physical manifestation of imagination, of joy, depair and love- is anything but black and white.

.

Oh thank you for bringing this up! I hadn't thought to juxtapose this problem with a discussion of atheism, what a fascinating connection you make! Daniel's smart.

I've run into problems with singer colleagues who refuse to fully participate in certain scenes because of their religious morality. I won't go into detail in public. But I can aver that this backing-away from playing the scene makes them poor performers, difficult colleagues, and unprofessional. Not to mention, it looks like they are unable to distinguish real life from Make Believe. If a singer has a moral problem with portraying certain scenes in a role, they should turn the role down. Not accept it, and then stand there stiff as boards during the scenes they disapprove of. It has an impact on the production as a whole, and as a scene partner, I can mention specific performances where I ended up looking somewhat bad because someone playing a character supposed to be in love with me acted repulsed instead.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Save the religious and spiritual specifics, logically speaking, the idea of eternal security/heaven COULD ONLY be incoming information, because the logic of it dictates that Love (God) had to exist before the idea of it could be expressed.

It is the idea that only sense can come from sense. Only love could make love, as opposed to being the product of some 'random nothing.'

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Patrick, ya know I love ya. Right?

The above is treading the proverbial thin ice. I really have to dispute the implication that atheists are not quite smart (you said even if an atheist is "smart enough" basically, to get what you're talking about.) The atheists I've known are about the most brilliant people I've EVER met.

I'm not with you on the "ideas" thing, again. I take it what I've gotten from your words is not what you intended to convey. Try again??

I was thinking that maybe I should have said "calling all agnostics."

I'll have to come back later to go through this more thoroughly. But just to give a sense of my mindframe with this, I'm trying to figure out if it's possible, or to what extent it's happened that an atheist or more likely an an agnostic has figured out (or has believed that they've figured out) the existence of God, or love's eternal nature, based on logic alone.

I'm sure I could have rephrased much of that post but I wanted to get the thought out before I lost it.

Originally Posted by Emproph

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it’s full potential in physical reality.

I think I'm talking basic philosophy here from the a-theist/theist perspective. A parallel frame would be the science of physics, especially quantum physics -- basically the study of the nature of unseen energy through mathematics (logic). Where they're getting to the point now where they can, or almost can pinpoint where matter itself becomes non-physical. It doesn't disappear, it just transforms. Like how an electron appears at any given point around an atom without ever moving through the space in between -- at least not physically.

The "disappear" part of the electron's, for lack of a better word, existence, would be comparable with what we would call the after life -- the non-physical portion of our existence (if you believe in that).

So the physicists are determining this through mathematics, philosophers through logic. I'm sure there are many technological and other advantages to knowing where the energy disappears to when it comes to physics, but the advantages to being certain of an after-life would be the benefits that come from a life lived without the fear of death -- eternal extinction.

So I think that's at the heart of what I'm suggesting. Not that love cannot be expressed, just that the certitude of its eternal sovereignty would add that much more to it.

My contention is that there is an unbiased way to prove that through logic alone, and that's what I want to try and get at here. But first I need to understand the logic of atheism, which is probably why I'm skating on thin ice, so please bear with me.

There's a lot of interesting stuff here I've got to come back to, like this:

Originally Posted by antonyh

These are the fruits of atheism and agnosticism. Really embracing the fact that you're going to cease to exist in your lifetime will cultivate tremendous love and creativity.

This is another thing I haven't taken into consideration enough, which may blow my theory right out of the water.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I'm trying to figure out if it's possible, or to what extent it's happened that an atheist or more likely an an agnostic has figured out (or has believed that they've figured out) the existence of God, or love's eternal nature, based on logic alone.

An atheist sees no evidence of god so it's not up to atheists to prove that god does or does not exist. It's the believer that claims that a god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The logic of atheism seems clear. If there's a god...where is he? Where's the evidence? I'm talking about credible evidence, not evidence from a book that was written twenty centuries ago that also tells about talking donkies and people magically turning into salt.

And as far as "love's eternal nature", what is this? Explain what you mean by this. Are you talking about something that exist outside of human emotion? If so, where is it? Where's the evidence?

Rick

[ladyinred]

I'm just going to say it. I respect another's right to think what they want and believe what they want. I was on a forum that attacked atheists one time, and I said I would not join them in their attack on atheists, many of these people are dedicated to promoting human rights and also support rights for GLBT people. It is not my place to judge them, period, or to force my religious or spiritual convictions down their throat.Yes ,many of them are brilliant and creative as well. I can say there are people who have become atheist or agnostic because of religion (Being told they were going to hell, sound familiar?)And cannot reconcile their belief system with what they see as injustice or unfairness and unloving God.
I was even on a forum where someone remarked atheists are evil. I asked why? They could not give me a response. We in the LGBT community do not like to be marginalized and I feel it is just as unfair to do this to atheists.I absolutely refuse to be a part of that. I will take the stand, that I am not superior to someone because of my beliefs or convictions,in fact I am not superior to anyone.While all beliefs may not be on equal footing (And I'm talking about those that harm or denigrate others), all men are created equal.

[ladyinred]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/social_contribution.html

[Emproph]

First of all, my beliefs about God/Jesus/Christianity are far from orthodox. When I say God, I’m talking about oneness, as in Everything is all one – we are all one, and that oneness is made of what we call unconditional love. So the Jesus that I believe in understands this, and thus the Christianity I am referring to is the one that holds this Love (God) first, and treat others as yourself as the goal.

Not the idolatry of supremacy that is often called Christianity today. Nor do I believe that one needs to accept Jesus as one’s savior in order to “get to heaven,” or even to understand oneness or Love as God. I pretty well agree with everything Buddha said and he was around before Jesus. Point being that neither the Bible nor Jesus are necessary to understand the oneness of Love, what I call God.

This is my goal.

I contend that God can be seen.

I contend that this can be explained.

If I can explain to an atheist how to see God and it works, they’d be able to explain it to other atheists infinitely better and more effectively than I could. The experiment so to speak would be repeatable -- while avoiding the conundrum of the need to "have faith" first.

This process could also work with stereotypical closet atheist conservative Christians if they weren’t insane. I don’t consider atheists/agnostics to be insane, therefore productive communication is much more likely.

This gets into some deep philosophy here, so not everyone is suited to it, but that’s really my whole point. Even if I convince no one, I want to be able to at least explain what I am saying in a way that even an atheist can understand it.

Long story short, I’m looking for all the holes in my theory of everything.

That said, I have no idea what it means to be atheist, so I am very sorry for having offended. You’re going to have to treat me like an anti-gay visitor when it comes to this, and this is precisely what I’m looking for. How do I discuss this in terms that will not offend or come across as typical condescension of people who are a-theist by people who are theist.

Like this:

Originally Posted by Emproph

Without the actual belief in eternal security, there's no way to express the belief in eternal security - 'salvation,' life after death, etc.

Even if you were an atheist and were smart enough to imagine what it truly means to believe in the security of an eternal heaven,

the actual belief in an eternal heaven will always produce superior fruit -- in physical reality (inventions, etc.) -- in the sense that the very concept of love/creativity that is held, is bigger than that of the atheist.

Inherent within the idea that God is infinite security/love/beauty/heaven, etc., lies the capacity to express that concept.

An atheist will NEVER have that privilege.

Thus, this atheistic thought of infinite Love can never reach it's full potential in physical reality.

First of all I think I’m wrong on that, at least the way I put it. Some of you have said some things that have really made me think.

Keeping in mind that the understanding and expression of unconditional love is the goal.

I think my argument there was that love expressed WITH the security of the knowledge of eternal life is superior to love expressed WITHOUT that security – perhaps not individually or always in practice, but at least in theory.

Two things come to mind. Some people may not be bothered by the thought of eternal extinction the way I imagine that they should be – the way I would be – so that’s projection on my part.

And secondly, I think the same argument could be made of the security of having enough money. Eternal life takes care of the fear of death/extinction, enough money takes care of the fears of life – but that’s NOT always a good thing. Too much security can sometimes be a corrupting influence.

Antony’s post touched on this idea from the opposite end:

These are the fruits of atheism and agnosticism. Really embracing the fact that you're going to cease to exist in your lifetime will cultivate tremendous love and creativity.

I recognize even within myself a certain complacency about life, and death for that matter, because I am not afraid of death itself – in the eternal extinction sense. And I despise the I’m “saved” and can therefore can sin my ass off, and you gays/liberals/atheists can go to hell (literally) attitude. That would probably be the worst form of corruption of the result of having that security of eternal life.

What also came to mind though, is that if an atheist came to understand oneness in the Love/God sense, then they would know even better than me, because I don’t understand atheism. THAT would be a superior perspective because then they would know both atheism AND theism, as opposed to one or the other.

They’d be the ultimate theist (utheism?). Kind of like a conservative who saw the light and became a liberal. They’re rare, but have a unique perspective that I would consider to be superior.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but identify more as agnostic. I don't believe in g(G)od(s), nor do I not-believe. It's more that I think that whatever does exist doesn't (and possibly shouldn't) have all that much influence on me while I"m here. If I'm a good person cause that's who I am, I figure that's gotta carry some sway, right?

Yes. The Golden Rule, the ONLY sway there is – whether you call that kind of love “God” or not...

I am just going to jump in and say how utterly ridiculous and offensive it is to say that atheists can't love the same as theists. It's basic de-humanizing (and, in fact, the same thing that is said over and over about gay relationships; it can't possibly be REAL love. Not as good as healthy, STRAIGHT love).

Alecto I am very sorry for giving that impression. I agree with what you said, and I had no intention to suggest such. I consider people who believe in love, as in the golden rule, to be Christian and to believe in “God” more so than people who say they believe in a god of love, but then run around spreading supremacist hatred, whether it’s anti-gay or anti-Iraqi or whatever.

As for the logic of defending theism...scientists are finding that a lot of the basic concepts for logic start to break down the closer you get to the beginning of the universe (Like, the first two seconds after the big bang). Causes don't necessarily have to come before effects. As such, the "uncaused cause" argument doesn't really matter anymore. And, in fact, my vision of eternity isn't a God, but rather a universe that endlessly causes it's own creation and destruction. My personal "religion" involves no true beginning of the universe, just maybe the universe sort of as we know it.

That’s exactly the type of discussion I’d like to get into here (if possible). I heard the same thing about how mathematics themselves break down at that point, but we all don’t know mathematics, we all do know thought however, and I think there’s a philosophical parallel that mirrors that same conclusion.

Where we find that the point where the logic breaks down leads us to a gap that is so small, that the “leap of faith” necessary to cross it is acceptable to even atheist or agnostic thinking. Maybe that's what you mean by the "uncaused cause" argument.

See, this has all been argued before, perhaps I have NOTHING new to offer.... (No, really. )

Again, it’s just a theory on my part (the provable part, not the theory part), I’m totally biased. But from what I’ve been able to determine from years of attempting to look at my own biased perspective objectively, that philosophical explanation above seems to be a good way of putting it. (not that I expect anyone to agree with that yet anyway)

Originally Posted by kara speltz

I totally agree with you. While my own life would feel pretty meaningless with out my relationship to God, I also know there was a time that I also considered myself agnostic. My own understanding is that we're all made in the image of God, whether we know that, or acknowledge that, doesn't change the fact that we are.

As I see it, people too often seem to have this need to focus on what divides us rather than acknowledging the simple fact that we are all united in a great oneness.

kara

I agree with you Kara. Especially about that we are all united in a great oneness and it doesn’t matter whether or not we call it God, unity is the highest good.

I’m not trying to focus on what divides us for the sake of it, I didn’t realize I would come across so divisive, so I acknowledge that I am very ignorant as to how to avoid this.

And I’ve thought about that over the past day. I’ve never not believed in God, I’m clueless – to my detriment. Please just know that I am sincere and help me out if you can to say things better so that I don’t come across as insulting and condescending when talking about atheism/agnosticism.

I never had to think about the "offense" involved, because I don't identify with it --again, to my lack.

-Patrick

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I hear you saying that someone who believes in God will always produce superior "fruits" to someone who does not. So tell me, darlin' E, how the guys who flew airplanes into the Trade Center a handful of years ago because they believed God would reward them have produced "fruit" superior to my atheist friend who, while maintaining a singing career, a marriage, and raising several little girls, has devoted most of his adult life to peace work and to building bridges between feuding faith communities, all out of his vision for the beloved community. Explain me that, Emproph.

UGH! That’s terrible. I’m an HORRIBLE HORRIBLE PERSON. I would NEVER mean that. Unless I was brain damaged, or a closet idolater “Christian” conservative.

They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of Love. I need to start using the word Love instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Unconditional love is their god in the sense that that’s what’s most important to them, that’s what they “worship.” Doing what is right is what “rules” their lives. And Christian in the adjective sense. They are Christ-i-an in nature, they are loving in nature.

I think my problem is that I’ve gotten so used to filtering out the blasphemy of their (faux christians) message when they’re talking God/Jesus and the Bible, that I forget to clarify the meaning of MY message when I’m using the same words, phrases, and even contexts, as with my original post in this thread.

I hope that clarifies my position. And good Lord, thank God I’ve got 800 posts under my belt, I can just imagine the bloodbath if I were a first-timer... You were gracious in your response. Thank You for being patient with me. AND AGAIN, if that’s not clear, let me know.

And to further clarify, I realize I'm still sounding like "those atheists," when really I could probably include you and Daniel at least in that lot of "atheists/agnostics" I know and love. So I'm trying to generalize for the sake of simplicity, not to depersonalize -- or at least I realize the risk of depersonalization that can be perceived by generalizing, and I take this into account and don't mean to do this for reasons other than brevity.

[Emproph]

Careful now, it’s a touch racy..

Cher - If I Could Turn Back Time

[u-dog]

Let's talk about a total LACK OF SUBTLETY!!

Those big 24 Inch guns rising up and lowering down in their turrets ???


And then she actually STRADDLES one of them.

Amazing.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

And speaking of things artistic- which seems part and parcel of fruitfulness- I have always been struck by the lack of artistry on the part of conservatives

[And everything in-between]

Yes. It is true that the church- historically speaking- has had hand in creating, furthering and nuturing art and music. But those days are long behind us. That ended with 18th Century Enlightenment.

I clarified a little bit earlier that the way I meant to present the “superior fruits” was in theory, not necessarily in practice.

With the non-creative Assemblies of God people, clearly believing and certain of God, but not creative, upon further reflection of what I wrote, I think I was suggesting something like, if you could take their certitude of heavenly life/God/Jesus and add it to the creativity of a fearless (atheist) artist, then THAT would be superior.

The fearless or non-judgmental part comes first though. And of course since Love doesn’t judge, Love is going to inspire those who don’t judge what it has to say. Come to think of it, what would we do without the certitude of that objective perspective?

Atheists, society’s natural dogma innoculators. Interesting thought. Then again, I see that as even more proof of Love’s perfect plan.

~~

Originally Posted by antonyh

I'm curious...does anyone know of a living Christian producing astonishingly great art?

Same theme: Or a living atheist creating great philosophy? (or a dead one for that matter.)

Not sayin' they don't exist, I just want to see one. I'm almost getting concerned now. There is such a thing as atheist philosophers isn't there?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Let's talk about a total LACK OF SUBTLETY!!

Those big 24 Inch guns rising up and lowering down in their turrets ???


And then she actually STRADDLES one of them.

Amazing.

But more disturbingly, since when is a gay man not familiar with that video...

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Rick336

An atheist sees no evidence of god so it's not up to atheists to prove that god does or does not exist. It's the believer that claims that a god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Agreed.

The logic of atheism seems clear. If there's a god...where is he? Where's the evidence?

See now to my experience, I would call that agnosticism. Because the question still exists.

To me, true atheism suggests a position that an ordering force of any kind cannot possibly ever be proven – Perhaps this mindset is rarer than I think?

And if you see love, you see God. ‘Taint no “he” any more than "He's" a star. That’s a bit more accurate a description of where I’m starting from.

I'm talking about credible evidence, not evidence from a book that was written twenty centuries ago that also tells about talking donkies and people magically turning into salt.

I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that anyone should just “believe” in something, like a book, or EVEN my first hand eye-witness. But I am starting from my own right here right now eye-witness, WITH the contention that it is possible to see for yourself what I see. NOT that it’s probable though.

It’s taken me nigh on 20 years to go through every possible combination of thought to get those brain connections to be able to see the process itself of seeing the boundless Love that is called God, but I think I’ve done it. That not exactly true, it actually does happen. and more importantly I think I can explain how it happens.

It's actually repeatable. It's the sight of perfection, and yes, it IS all in your mind.

But like I said before, not everyone is intellectually suited to this level of brain activity/organization. I would say that every brain is capable of it, but not every personality is even desirous of entertaining the complex thought concepts that maybe necessary to see what I want to talk about. Even I’M only capable of it part of the time!

But that's really my whole point. I want to be able to simplify that, soundbite the explanation of perfection if you will.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I think I can explain perfection.


I heard that. Yuck it up kids...

~~

And as far as "love's eternal nature", what is this? Explain what you mean by this. Are you talking about something that exist outside of human emotion? If so, where is it? Where's the evidence?

Rick

Yes, I am suggesting that. That's what I mean when I say the word God. And that’s what I want to get into here at some point. The logical evidence of the independence of love.

To answer this next part would require getting into it. But first I need to establish some level of trust when it comes to talking about this subject, and so far I’ve been having a bit of a hard time with that.

Let me at least say that I’m approaching the subject with the idea that the existence of what we know of as unconditional Love itself had to exist before to idea to create brain circuitry that was capable of experiencing love – and all other lesser emotions.

Originally Posted by Rick336

Love is an emotion like hate, fear, jealousy, embarrassment, saddness, and joy. It is a result of human brain activity. It is not a thing that exist outside the human body. You may see human behavior motivated by love but love itself is just an emotion produced by the brain. To say "only love can make love" makes no sense. It would be the same as saying that only embarrassment can make embarrassment or only jealousy can make jealousy.

Rick

Unconditional love, or God as I call it, had to come first before all the conditional human facets of that “emotion” could also exist, including evil.

Believe me, I’m ready and raring to go on this, but it’s not going to help the situation if you and others think that I’m not being respectful of your and others’ feelings and perspective on the subject.