I was an atheist prior to 2016. I thought those that believed in religions were of inferior intellect and brain washed sheep.
Little did I know that it was I was was brainwashed by cabal propaganda to remove Christ from society while promoting degeneracy and the destruction of the nuclear family unit.
I consider myself to be an agnostic: a person who recognizes they are not wise enough to answer the question of whether or not there exists an "aware" creator of the universe, i.e. the jury is still deliberating.
As such I have belonged to groups with, and had many conversations with Atheists. Some believe they know the truth, and the truth is there is no creator. I have turned several of these people into Agnostics by the simple logic of how their beliefs are also not based on fact but on faith: their main complaint against the popular creator stories.
Most "Atheists" however are actually agnostic, with a slant very specifically against the tenants of Christianity (because its the most popular creator narrative in America). Their primary objections against these narratives are very logical conclusions against the stricter beliefs that don't pass muster against available evidence, they are not against the wisdom of the teachings.
I'm just putting that out there from the perspective of one who has been involved with those that call themselves "Atheist." That doesn't go against the OP. Atheism as a religion (those that fall into the first category above) could very well have been a Luciferian psy op.
So I recently started praying, not sure what pushed me to this, being spiritual but not tied to any "belief system."
So far I feel comfortable with this, feels more intimate to me. But when I admitted this to TDW a bit back, many were encouraging, but poignant to make it clear I should consider church. Thing is, most around me are questionable from a distance. So I am keeping to my solo prayer for now.
I was Agnostic until God reached out to me via his messenger. There is no mistaking the touch of God, at that point it is no longer a question of faith, but of faithfulness.
I can not agree with your assessment "There is no mistaking the touch of God." Evidence to support that idea beyond a reasonable doubt simply does not exist from my explorations. And before you think I say that in ignorance, please understand that I was raised by an amazingly wise and inquisitive theologian and Lutheran minister. At about 16 I began questioning the narrative (with much healthy debate with that minister, my father). At about 20 I began studying all the worlds religions in depth. By 30 I had come to the conclusion that no one knew shit, and most were still searching, even those that believed they were not.
The most important conclusion that I came to, was that despite all my years of studying science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, history, despite all my degrees, despite all my years of solving problems internally and professionally, despite all the incredibly wise people I learned from, spoke to, debated with, read from; I knew that I knew absolutely nothing about ANYTHING, and every time I found an answer to a question, and the more "expert" I became, the less I knew. The second most important conclusion I came to was that not a single other person knew anything either.
That is why the jury is still deliberating, because the question can not be answered by mere mortals to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence" without a much better body of evidence.
Having said that, I fault no one for their faith. In fact, I think it is a wonderful tool to allow oneself to take comfort there. I know that feeling. I had it for the first 16 years of my life. I doubt I will ever have it again, but I am ok with that as well.
Perhaps when I die I will find out more, perhaps while I live conclusive evidence will present itself. Perhaps when I die I will simply cease to exist. But none of those prospects really holds more importance to me than any other. The only thing that ever exists is the moment. Each moment is to be appreciated. When I remember that, tomorrows answers or lack thereof are meaningless, and there is more comfort in the appreciated moment than any faith can ever provide.
You are free to disagree with my assertion for you, but know that it has no bearing on me.
I literally saw 'the light', and whilst I could try and describe it, any description I gave would only demean what I experienced. The sense of knowing I experienced was like nothing else in my entire existence. It was like tearing a hole in the fabric of my reality and seeing that there was a light shining behind it.
I appreciate and respect your position and beliefs. The problem I had was with your statement, "There is no mistaking the touch of God."
That statement suggests that it is objectively impossible to not see the touch of God if anyone really looks (and gets lucky?). It suggests that if I have not seen, it is only because I have not looked long or hard enough (or have not been lucky enough?). It suggests that if I continue to look with complete openness of spirit I will eventually see what you have seen, because it is objectively there; something that exists outside of belief, as some universal truth.
I object to anyone suggesting that because they personally believe something, that they are somehow more in tune with reality than anyone who doesn't share that belief.
I do not object to someone feeling comfort or finding peace in a strong belief system. I appreciate anyone who finds internal peace, no matter where they find it, as long as their beliefs do not allow for infringement upon others rights, thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
Perhaps the way I described it lent itself to misunderstanding.
What I meant to say was, that if you have ever felt the touch of God, you would not mistake it for anything else.
I don't expect others to share my beliefs, and I appreciate your position, but I meant that statement as a subjective observation.
Just because I have felt the touch of God I do not expect you to believe it on my say so, and that's also not implying there is any kind of superiority involved or I consider myself luckier to have had this experience.
What I will say is that it was as a result of years of soul searching and personal development and, ultimately, letting go of my ego and expectations.
I have no real proof that you even exist, or that the keyboard I am typing on exists. All I can know is how I feel and what I experience as a conscious entity - all else is up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. I believe it is this approach to 'reality' that has allowed me to experience things which (to me) feel more real than me typing on this keyboard.
There is a point where some individuals have direct witness of God. For those people, their knowledge obviates faith. For anyone who has not had direct experience, I agree that their faith can simply be the product of intellect or belief. I was agnostic for many years, later acquired intellectual belief, grew in faith even as a doubting Thomas, but was blessed by direct contact that was truly unmistakable. I don't have any material evidence to share, but offer my testimony for what it's worth. It is possible that you may receive the proof you seek. If you are like me, the form will surprise you.
I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Your argument is founded upon the bible being divine. From that axiom you can prove almost anything. There are MANY Christian (and pseudo-Christian) religions that are "proven" by exactly that axiom.
The bible is written in a way that is open to interpretation in many areas (some books/chapters/verses are less so). Even the "original" scriptures (whatever that means) were this way. I debated this topic many times with my father, since he learned both Greek and Hebrew at the seminary in order to read "original" texts. We often debated the English interpretations from those "original" (meaning simply older) texts.
Regardless, it is impossible to have a debate of logical discourse with someone when you have fundamentally different axioms. You must first begin with the same axioms before logic can even come into play. I will not play the game starting with "the bible is divine." That is a path I will no longer take. However, if you wish to start with another axiom as a basis for discussion I will happily partake. If you believe you can PROVE the bible is divine, that is something else I would be willing to discuss. None of the arguments you have given above make that case in any meaningful way, especially since I can provide evidence that does not support most of your statements.
Please note I never said the bible held no HISTORICAL accuracies, on the contrary, I stated exactly that it does.
Ah, I think I understand now. I looked at your other post. You believe you have (or someone has) proven that earth is the center of the universe. One of my degrees is in physics with an emphasis in cosmology (the study of the evolution and formation of the universe) so I feel I have enough knowledge to speak on this topic.
There being an organization to the universe is interesting, even exciting, but it does NOT point to the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, the more likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that there is a preferential spin to the universe that causes our solar system to be oriented along that plane. Indeed this preferential spin shows itself in other ways across all the known universe, such as Kaon decay, and in the existence of time itself (only flows one way outside of large bending of space).
There are many solar systems (infinite amount perhaps) that would have the same orientation as ours just by chance. Given this preferred universal orientation the more likely scenario is that solar systems PREFER to align along the same plane. If true, this would make our solar system the norm, rather than the exception.
Given that our models of universe evolution are just that, models, and that those models are drastically changing constantly (and never agreed upon), there is no way that this evidence is sufficient to prove that Earth is the center of the universe, or come to the conclusion that humans are something special cosmically speaking. In fact, I find that to be the ultimate arrogance to even attempt to prove such a thing without substantially more evidence than a pulling out the less likely reason for an observation than the more likely reason (Occam's razor).
"The fact that this has been known for years but even you haven't heard about it - having an academic background in cosmology should be proof enough for you that it's been covered up, a quick google of 'axis of evil' turning up nothing is further confirmation. The cabal is hiding this... wonder why?"
Who said I haven't heard of it? I learned about it a long time ago. This is not being hidden by the Cabal in academia. It is not talked about as "proof" of anything because there is simply not enough information to come to a meaningful conclusion. As I said, our models of cosmology are changing all the time.
"It proves that the isotropic theories of a random beginning are false, yes."
Isotropic theories of the origin of the universe have not been seriously entertained in physics for almost 100 years.
"The most likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that you want there to be some made-up 'preferential spin to the universe' - I hate to be mean but that's a ridiculous idea. Solar systems are fairly Randomly orientated throughout the universe."
No, there obviously IS a preferential spin to the universe. This has been known for several decades, before the CMB thing. We do not know why. It is a great mystery. Our solar system apparently (but not proven sufficiently) having an alignment with the universe as a whole while interesting, is not proof of anything. Again, the MOST LIKELY explanation is that the SAME FORCE that aligned the universe aligned our solar system with it. The only way to know if that is MEANINGFUL statistically speaking is to measure all the other solar systems and see if our alignment is special. To the best of my knowledge that is currently an impossible experiment to conduct (technologically speaking).
Of interest, I think the Milky Way is aligned almost exactly perpendicular to the same plane, which is even more evidence that it is some force that is causing a preferential alignment.
"Big Bang cosmology is a gold standard in science, and CMB with it."
I'm sorry man, nothing could be further from the truth, or at least, nothing could be more misleading from the truth. The Big Bang model of universal origin is actually MANY models starting from the same axiom (point like spread of spacetime). The debate of cosmological expansion, and which Big Bang model we should use (IF ANY) is huge and heated. It has been debated for 100 years, and likely will be debated for many more.
"Sorry for being tough on you"
Not a problem! Debate is healthy. Different ideas help us mere humans get closer to the truth of things. This is the way.
I was an atheist prior to 2016. I thought those that believed in religions were of inferior intellect and brain washed sheep.
Little did I know that it was I was was brainwashed by cabal propaganda to remove Christ from society while promoting degeneracy and the destruction of the nuclear family unit.
“If I Were the Devil” by Paul Harvey
We used to think the same way, then. It's good to see Christ alive working miracles every day.
Thank you
Bill Maher is no atheist like he claims. He is a Luciferian.
Actually, the 1958 Book "Pawns in the Game" said many Luciferians claim to be atheists.
Nonetheless, Atheism seems to be a natural and sincere conclusion for many people in their search for truth.
I consider myself to be an agnostic: a person who recognizes they are not wise enough to answer the question of whether or not there exists an "aware" creator of the universe, i.e. the jury is still deliberating.
As such I have belonged to groups with, and had many conversations with Atheists. Some believe they know the truth, and the truth is there is no creator. I have turned several of these people into Agnostics by the simple logic of how their beliefs are also not based on fact but on faith: their main complaint against the popular creator stories.
Most "Atheists" however are actually agnostic, with a slant very specifically against the tenants of Christianity (because its the most popular creator narrative in America). Their primary objections against these narratives are very logical conclusions against the stricter beliefs that don't pass muster against available evidence, they are not against the wisdom of the teachings.
I'm just putting that out there from the perspective of one who has been involved with those that call themselves "Atheist." That doesn't go against the OP. Atheism as a religion (those that fall into the first category above) could very well have been a Luciferian psy op.
So I recently started praying, not sure what pushed me to this, being spiritual but not tied to any "belief system."
So far I feel comfortable with this, feels more intimate to me. But when I admitted this to TDW a bit back, many were encouraging, but poignant to make it clear I should consider church. Thing is, most around me are questionable from a distance. So I am keeping to my solo prayer for now.
Absolutely disagree. Why would you steer clear of the body of Christ?
Churches are by no means perfect, but small, unaffiliated groups have their own set of problems.
I was Agnostic until God reached out to me via his messenger. There is no mistaking the touch of God, at that point it is no longer a question of faith, but of faithfulness.
I can not agree with your assessment "There is no mistaking the touch of God." Evidence to support that idea beyond a reasonable doubt simply does not exist from my explorations. And before you think I say that in ignorance, please understand that I was raised by an amazingly wise and inquisitive theologian and Lutheran minister. At about 16 I began questioning the narrative (with much healthy debate with that minister, my father). At about 20 I began studying all the worlds religions in depth. By 30 I had come to the conclusion that no one knew shit, and most were still searching, even those that believed they were not.
The most important conclusion that I came to, was that despite all my years of studying science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, history, despite all my degrees, despite all my years of solving problems internally and professionally, despite all the incredibly wise people I learned from, spoke to, debated with, read from; I knew that I knew absolutely nothing about ANYTHING, and every time I found an answer to a question, and the more "expert" I became, the less I knew. The second most important conclusion I came to was that not a single other person knew anything either.
That is why the jury is still deliberating, because the question can not be answered by mere mortals to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence" without a much better body of evidence.
Having said that, I fault no one for their faith. In fact, I think it is a wonderful tool to allow oneself to take comfort there. I know that feeling. I had it for the first 16 years of my life. I doubt I will ever have it again, but I am ok with that as well.
Perhaps when I die I will find out more, perhaps while I live conclusive evidence will present itself. Perhaps when I die I will simply cease to exist. But none of those prospects really holds more importance to me than any other. The only thing that ever exists is the moment. Each moment is to be appreciated. When I remember that, tomorrows answers or lack thereof are meaningless, and there is more comfort in the appreciated moment than any faith can ever provide.
You are free to disagree with my assertion for you, but know that it has no bearing on me.
I literally saw 'the light', and whilst I could try and describe it, any description I gave would only demean what I experienced. The sense of knowing I experienced was like nothing else in my entire existence. It was like tearing a hole in the fabric of my reality and seeing that there was a light shining behind it.
I appreciate and respect your position and beliefs. The problem I had was with your statement, "There is no mistaking the touch of God."
That statement suggests that it is objectively impossible to not see the touch of God if anyone really looks (and gets lucky?). It suggests that if I have not seen, it is only because I have not looked long or hard enough (or have not been lucky enough?). It suggests that if I continue to look with complete openness of spirit I will eventually see what you have seen, because it is objectively there; something that exists outside of belief, as some universal truth.
I object to anyone suggesting that because they personally believe something, that they are somehow more in tune with reality than anyone who doesn't share that belief.
I do not object to someone feeling comfort or finding peace in a strong belief system. I appreciate anyone who finds internal peace, no matter where they find it, as long as their beliefs do not allow for infringement upon others rights, thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
Perhaps the way I described it lent itself to misunderstanding.
What I meant to say was, that if you have ever felt the touch of God, you would not mistake it for anything else.
I don't expect others to share my beliefs, and I appreciate your position, but I meant that statement as a subjective observation.
Just because I have felt the touch of God I do not expect you to believe it on my say so, and that's also not implying there is any kind of superiority involved or I consider myself luckier to have had this experience.
What I will say is that it was as a result of years of soul searching and personal development and, ultimately, letting go of my ego and expectations.
I have no real proof that you even exist, or that the keyboard I am typing on exists. All I can know is how I feel and what I experience as a conscious entity - all else is up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. I believe it is this approach to 'reality' that has allowed me to experience things which (to me) feel more real than me typing on this keyboard.
There is a point where some individuals have direct witness of God. For those people, their knowledge obviates faith. For anyone who has not had direct experience, I agree that their faith can simply be the product of intellect or belief. I was agnostic for many years, later acquired intellectual belief, grew in faith even as a doubting Thomas, but was blessed by direct contact that was truly unmistakable. I don't have any material evidence to share, but offer my testimony for what it's worth. It is possible that you may receive the proof you seek. If you are like me, the form will surprise you.
I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Your argument is founded upon the bible being divine. From that axiom you can prove almost anything. There are MANY Christian (and pseudo-Christian) religions that are "proven" by exactly that axiom.
The bible is written in a way that is open to interpretation in many areas (some books/chapters/verses are less so). Even the "original" scriptures (whatever that means) were this way. I debated this topic many times with my father, since he learned both Greek and Hebrew at the seminary in order to read "original" texts. We often debated the English interpretations from those "original" (meaning simply older) texts.
Regardless, it is impossible to have a debate of logical discourse with someone when you have fundamentally different axioms. You must first begin with the same axioms before logic can even come into play. I will not play the game starting with "the bible is divine." That is a path I will no longer take. However, if you wish to start with another axiom as a basis for discussion I will happily partake. If you believe you can PROVE the bible is divine, that is something else I would be willing to discuss. None of the arguments you have given above make that case in any meaningful way, especially since I can provide evidence that does not support most of your statements.
Please note I never said the bible held no HISTORICAL accuracies, on the contrary, I stated exactly that it does.
Ah, I think I understand now. I looked at your other post. You believe you have (or someone has) proven that earth is the center of the universe. One of my degrees is in physics with an emphasis in cosmology (the study of the evolution and formation of the universe) so I feel I have enough knowledge to speak on this topic.
There being an organization to the universe is interesting, even exciting, but it does NOT point to the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, the more likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that there is a preferential spin to the universe that causes our solar system to be oriented along that plane. Indeed this preferential spin shows itself in other ways across all the known universe, such as Kaon decay, and in the existence of time itself (only flows one way outside of large bending of space).
There are many solar systems (infinite amount perhaps) that would have the same orientation as ours just by chance. Given this preferred universal orientation the more likely scenario is that solar systems PREFER to align along the same plane. If true, this would make our solar system the norm, rather than the exception.
Given that our models of universe evolution are just that, models, and that those models are drastically changing constantly (and never agreed upon), there is no way that this evidence is sufficient to prove that Earth is the center of the universe, or come to the conclusion that humans are something special cosmically speaking. In fact, I find that to be the ultimate arrogance to even attempt to prove such a thing without substantially more evidence than a pulling out the less likely reason for an observation than the more likely reason (Occam's razor).
"The fact that this has been known for years but even you haven't heard about it - having an academic background in cosmology should be proof enough for you that it's been covered up, a quick google of 'axis of evil' turning up nothing is further confirmation. The cabal is hiding this... wonder why?"
Who said I haven't heard of it? I learned about it a long time ago. This is not being hidden by the Cabal in academia. It is not talked about as "proof" of anything because there is simply not enough information to come to a meaningful conclusion. As I said, our models of cosmology are changing all the time.
"It proves that the isotropic theories of a random beginning are false, yes."
Isotropic theories of the origin of the universe have not been seriously entertained in physics for almost 100 years.
"The most likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that you want there to be some made-up 'preferential spin to the universe' - I hate to be mean but that's a ridiculous idea. Solar systems are fairly Randomly orientated throughout the universe."
No, there obviously IS a preferential spin to the universe. This has been known for several decades, before the CMB thing. We do not know why. It is a great mystery. Our solar system apparently (but not proven sufficiently) having an alignment with the universe as a whole while interesting, is not proof of anything. Again, the MOST LIKELY explanation is that the SAME FORCE that aligned the universe aligned our solar system with it. The only way to know if that is MEANINGFUL statistically speaking is to measure all the other solar systems and see if our alignment is special. To the best of my knowledge that is currently an impossible experiment to conduct (technologically speaking).
Of interest, I think the Milky Way is aligned almost exactly perpendicular to the same plane, which is even more evidence that it is some force that is causing a preferential alignment.
"Big Bang cosmology is a gold standard in science, and CMB with it."
I'm sorry man, nothing could be further from the truth, or at least, nothing could be more misleading from the truth. The Big Bang model of universal origin is actually MANY models starting from the same axiom (point like spread of spacetime). The debate of cosmological expansion, and which Big Bang model we should use (IF ANY) is huge and heated. It has been debated for 100 years, and likely will be debated for many more.
"Sorry for being tough on you"
Not a problem! Debate is healthy. Different ideas help us mere humans get closer to the truth of things. This is the way.
I don't think there are as many atheist anons anymore as you think. People change.