The Religion of Atheism

Good work @Kokomojojo! I must say, I'm slightly disappointed that I too wasn't given credit after all of my efforts!

 

So if he WASN'T in control of his wants, needs, will, power, non-power, and desires, he would be LESS of a "flawed human with human desires and needs?"

What do you know about spirituality in order to make this assessment?

 

Evidence is used to gain and can be proof. The Bible(s) are neither in respect to a God.

 

How do you know whats real?

 

Hmm, how is the bible any different than any other history book?

 

In this case it would be video documentation, encyclopedic data and abundant history designating it as such. Different situations however supply differing quality and quantity of data to review as proof of reality. Both Unicorns and God supply nothing but books of a fictional nature.

 

I has no means of peer review or verification and contains stories designated as impossible by science.

 

There are a lot more versions of god than unicorns.

 

Intelligent thought. I would strongly recommend it to you.

 

Why don't you explain it for us? My guess would be all you will come up with is there is no such thing as proof in science and all you will come up with is proof is an accumulation of evidence.

 

I'm kind of disappointed. You cherry picked my quote and didn't even answer the question.

 

What you don't understand is that God has no wants, needs, desires, risks, expectations, plans, hopes, or understandings.

Far, far more than you can now imagine. FAR more. And I know enough to know it is very unlikely that you could receive it at this point.

 

The difference is it isn't a history book. I know, I know, they have discovered the ark several times, but it still doesn't make the bible a history book.

 

Yet...YOU KNOW and understand him?

HOW?

 

ah yes, so neo-atheists continue to accept the ad populum fallacy in addtion to the rest of the fallacies they re;y upon as their 'proof'.

Who says and what rule book states something must have peer review to be 'true'?

So then the earth really is flat after all?

That sounds more like neo atheists 'meat computer religion" to me.

so then the fact it has so much history in it is just something you handwave away and simply dismiss out of hand since it does not align with your world view.

 

Actually it's quite the opposite. Modern religionists have rejected what the monastics said and wrote with a mere handwave. You could read up on St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Catherine of Siena, Mme. Jean Guyon, and Father Thomas Keating for starters.

If God is pure, one, and whole, He has no wants, desires, or needs because these things indicate a lack and wishing for fulfillment. If God dwells beyond time and knows the end from the beginning, He has no wants, desires, needs, risks, expectations, plans, or hopes because they all happen and unfold in time. And if He knows all that is, He has no understandings because He Knows and therefore lacks viewpoints and perspectives.

But if "god" has been anthropomorphized, he may have all of them.

 

so any knowledgeable christian out here feel free to correct me since I am agnostic and dont know the finer points but what kode is preaching is not christian, but atheism and passing it off as christian since those are christian writers.

Gen 1:26–28
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image/b'tsalmeinu, after our likenesss/kid'muteinu; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said to them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
Gen 5:1–3
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him. Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.
Gen 9:6
One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image/tselem He made man.
so what man do you know, who is made in the image of god, has all those lights on nobodies home you are talking about except atheology where man is nothing more than a meat computer?

Looks like atheist projection to me.

It would seem to me that the proper interpretation, which is to say the intended meaning is that God is the ideological perfection of all things man, polar opposite of your meat computer most likely some brand of atheological propaganda?

Now that atheism has been proven to be a religion it seems like the thread has degenerated in to proving the (non)/existence of God.

 

Which is to say that the more time that passes, the closer the mind of man understands what Jesus said. Sorry. That's ridiculous.

Meister Eckhart said that man shares in the Logos; we are the worldly manifestation of the true Self hiding within the body. The Logos is the "light" within us.
John 1:9 - That was the true Light which lighteth every man who comes into the world.

1 Corinthians 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him."

Colossians 3:11 - "Christ is all, and in all."

Man is "the image and likeness of God" and the bible says God is pure, immortal, perfect, infinite, and God is love. Does that describe man? Or must it describe the True Being of man and not the flesh?

You said "I am agnostic and dont know the finer points". But I went very deep into the spirituality of Jesus for about ten years and discovered the "finer points".

I journeyed far beyond the "meat computer". Do you understand I Corinthians, 2:14 - "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." ?

 

And you can't back that up with anything? I agree that God doesn't have needs by the way.

You're an atheist, no?

 

Alright. "The problem it that I still don't believe in the religion of theism. So what religion am I?" Agnosticism would be the likely religion.

 

Agnostic is a position not a religion, just as with Atheism.

 

Why? Haven't you heard of a dictionary? Let me do your work for you:

EVIDENCE: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

PROOF: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof

 

I'm only talking about the Christian God.

 

Obviously, but which version of it?

And don't even bother saying there is only one version as that is demonstrably false.