Hi

[Arik]

How you got whatever it is you are rambling on about out of my signature, is beyond me.  What my signature does is simply point out what a contradiction the concept of god really is.  Your comments on my signature makes no sense at all.  I really don't know what your point is nor how free will and being controlled by my father comes in.  Your communication and grammar skills are nonexistent.  But then, as a theist babble is your language.

You work out in your mind that the concept of God is a contradiction and that idea to me has zero value that is why I did explained to you in simple words why.
It is the free will used in the wrong way by humans that generate all evil so nothing to do with God.

On one hand you know quite well that evil is generate by humans and on the other hand you ask why God doesn't stop it.
Don't you know that in nature we have both the positive and negative or yin and yang?

Would you like only the positive Mike?
Would you like a machine to print money so you don't have to work anymore.
Would you like total health and well being and never get sick or old?

Why God would create the universe with only the positive?
Well Mike I leave to you to work that out.
I am sure that one day you will work that out.

Good luck.

[Cavebear]

I will stop "believing" when you do it first.  You are not American, not Democrat, not male, not human etc.  those are all figments of the human imagination.

Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs".  The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.

I can't really help you about that.  It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun.  The is not real and the other is.  That's really all there is to it.  But some people just can't see the difference.  Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.

[Arik]

Well, as all theists do, you mistake thoughts for "beliefs".  The real problem that theists have is that they can't QUITE comprehend the difference between ideas they have that are supported only by belief and those that are supported by facts.

I can't really help you about that.  It's the difference between HOPING a deity exists and Measuring how planets orbit around the sun.  The is not real and the other is.  That's really all there is to it.  But some people just can't see the difference.  Still, that is THEIR problem, not mine.

All theists do?

Are you sure that all theists do?

I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.

Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?

Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.

That way of judging is bankrupt CB.

Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.

Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.

[Cavebear]

All theists do?

Are you sure that all theists do?

I believe in what I can be very very sure about not on something that some people tell me as facts.

Your problem CB like most materialists people do is that you come to the conclusion that something is real only when your physical senses can ascertain the so called facts in this way.
Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?
Love is not physical yet you believe in it as a fact, isn't the case CB?
But again materialists put a barrier between what is physical and what is not?
Why?

Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain.

That way of judging is bankrupt CB.

Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs.

Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution.
Unfortunately for people who only believe in what they can perceive with their physical senses.

First, I'm not "CB" to you.  Or "Cavey".  I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes).  You are not one of them.

Second, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind.  Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc.  In other words, "faith".  I have no use for that, and no respect for it either.  I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.

Third, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).

Now, let me address your statements...

"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"

Yes it is and there are reasons.  I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe.  I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.

"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"

We do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ.  It is material.

"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"

That makes no sense, of course.  There is no "devolution".  Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions.  Would you like to give an example of "devolution"? 

You said that "Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"

Some thoughts about that:

1.  The first part is correct.  Science never said that love or consciousness are material things.  But that is completely irrelevant. 

2.  But science does not back "beliefs".  Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim.  Faith-believers do, however. 

What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!

I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...

[Mr.Obvious]

@Cavebear

You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.

[Cavebear]

@Cavebear

You mind if I call you 'Cave'? It's a force of habit of mine to find nicknames to people's online nicknames and call 'em by that.
But if you prefer, I will strive to call you Cavebear.

OK, a short story here.  I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey".  I don't know why I called him "Jeff".  20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff".  I never realized that.  And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect.  For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff".  But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.

So,  I can't control what anyone calls me here.  But I AM "Cavebear".  I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else.  I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...

I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well.  But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".

[Arik]

First, I'm not "CB" to you.  Or "Cavey".  I grant my friends the right to that (reluctantly, sometimes).  You are not one of them.

I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.

Second, as a theist, you are not guided by evidence/facts/information or any other word you think of that is opposition to what basically drives your mind.  Which is unsupported thoughts, superstitions, magical thoughts, imaginings, dreams, etc.  In other words, "faith".  I have no use for that, and no respect for it either.  I think superstitious-thinking people are a bit nuts and probably their brains were wrong-wired at an early age by the influence of older nuts.

That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.

Third, I suspect that half the craziness in the world from the earliest times to today is due to such superstitious thinking (the other half is just plain mean greedy thinking).

Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.

Now, let me address your statements...

"Isn't a fact your love for someone is real?"

Yes it is and there are reasons.  I grow to understand that person, find value in how they think, and agree with them because they generally agree with my understanding of the universe.  I would not love, or even spend much time with, someone who did not.

So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?

"Consciousness also is not physical and that is a fact but again for materialists that is part of the physical brain"

We do not (yet) understand consciousness but it is a product of the brain, and the brain is a bodily organ.  It is material.

Stop there Mister.

One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Are you serious?

"Evolution thought in this materialistic way can only lead to devolution"

That makes no sense, of course.  There is no "devolution".  Even species that seem to revert to previous forms are merely newly-evolving to changing conditions.  Would you like to give an example of "devolution"?

I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

You said that "Science never said that love or consciousness are material things yet materialists always claim that science back their beliefs"

Some thoughts about that:

1.  The first part is correct.  Science never said that love or consciousness are material things.  But that is completely irrelevant. 

2.  But science does not back "beliefs".  Scientists (and other logical beings) do not make that claim.  Faith-believers do, however. 

What you can't seem to get past is that rational thinkers are NOT LIKE YOU!

I hope that is sufficient to help you understand what a non-faith-believer THINKS...

Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

[Mr.Obvious]

OK, a short story here.  I met a friend in college and his stated name on the door was "Jeffrey".  I don't know why I called him "Jeff".  20 years later, someone called him "Jeff" and he very pointedly said "Its "Jeffrey", only HE (pointing to me) can call me "Jeff".  I never realized that.  And I never called him "Jeff" again, out of respect.  For all I know, he missed me calling him "Jeff".  But that was how he generally wanted the world to call him, and I obliged.

So,  I can't control what anyone calls me here.  But I AM "Cavebear".  I do not think of myself as "CB", "Cavey", "CBear" or anything else.  I am "Cavebear" after the 'Clan of the Cave Bear' books by Jean Auel...

I am not upset in any way, nicknames are generally meant well.  But since you ask, it's "Cavebear".

Then Cavebear it is.

[Hydra009]

Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

[Cavebear]

I never intended to call you CB for disrespect but only because I try to save time so I tend to reduce people name with A B C letters.
That's all.

"NO PROB"

Other than that, you don't seem to understand logic at all...

*SIGH*  Talking to non-factual people is like arguing with children about dessert...

OK look, evolution is probably my favorite subject as a concept.  It is probably one of the most brilliant thought-concepts of all time .  So, to start, you are unlikely to be able to tell me "that's not as the evolution works " (and I will allow "how" because sometimes I don't type worth a damn, either).

Your several statements after that made no sense at all...

That is not as the evolution works.
The more you are able to penetrate the inner self the more you understand how the system works.
The same goes for anything in life.
The more you study the more you know things but of course to you all this means nothing considering that for you the role of consciousness means nothing and evolution is only related to physical changes.


Once again you generalize as if all the people would be the same.

No, I generalize only about the superstitious faith-oriented people here.  You ARE a majority in most places, but shrinking...

So if you agree that love is real then why there should be a difference between physical-mental love and spiritual love?
Isn't love something able to penetrate the core of your consciousness in either situations?

Because there are actual people I love, not an imaginary "Being-In-The-Sky"...

"One time you talk and talk about so called theists fantasies about something that is void of evidence.
The next time you come down with statements which are 100% void of any evidence like the story that the consciousness is a product of the brain.  "Are you serious?

Yes.  Jab a screwdriver in a brain and stir it around and see if the Creature functions.  QED.  [Note to any readers, I am NOT suggesting this]. 

I am not talking about low form of life such as plants and animals which are driven by mother nature or instinct.
There can not be devolution there but there is devolution and evolution in humans which is due to human free will.
This is well documented in thousand of NDEs and it make sense because without justice nothing would work.

Give any specific example...

Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

A very old and boring claim.  Faith-believers just LOVE to try to make factual people the same as them to get that argument about facts and evidence off the table.  It's a trick Trump tries daily.  It doesn't impress me.

[Baruch]

Faith-addled people are fond of telling other people that 1) there's nothing wrong with being religious 2) non-religious people are actually religious in a bizarre attempt at a put-down.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Monkeys throw poo.  Who knew?

[Unbeliever]

Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Yeah, it's called the Twilight Zone.

[Hydra009]

Unfortunately for you CB there is an other reality which doesn't need sight, touch, smell, hearing or taste.

Oh, and how do you know that?  Did someone die and go to heaven and then tell a story about what they saw?   

[Unbeliever]

Anyone who believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain or that with the physical death is all over is also a faith-believer which means YOU are a faith believer as much as any religious person.

There's a big difference between "believing" something and accepting something as a "working hypothesis" until further evidence/information is available. To believe something is to fully accept that it is true, now and forever, whereas a working hypothesis can, and should, be altered by new knowledge.

You haven't yet brought us any new knowledge, only assertions that you cannot back up with evidence. Assertions that cannot be backed up with evidence are only as good as the paper they're written on, since counter-assertions can also be made, and there's no way to differentiate between the two to see which is actually true.

[Baruch]

I have a working hypothesis.  Humans are not an intelligent species.  And as such are disqualified from judging themselves as intelligent.