Discussion on Jim Jones: another Atheist mass murderer

The discussion which follows took place due to my video Jim Jones: another Atheist mass murderer.

@alexdenton1073

Ken sorry wasn’t sure where to ask this, wondering if you will be doing a podcast or video on Squid games ? Thank You

@comeasyouare4545

If you’re trying to disown Jim Jones lets make a comparison between What he did, and what you are doing. Let’s see he had past experience in the church. He became a cult leader because of that experience. He had a compound that was to be an expression of utopia. He milked is followers. Meaning of their money, and property. If he was in fact an atheist his followers weren’t. Why would he be chanting: All the while, Rhodes said, Jones was telling them they would “meet in another place” and chanted, “mother, mother, mother”—”an apparent reference to his wife who lay dead not far from the altar,” according to the Post. Jones died of a gunshot wound to the head. Atheist don’t believe we’re going to meet in another place, but theist do.

@12345shushi

You seem to believe that you made a valid criticism. In reality their is no logical reasoning, connection between your premises nor any valid justification in any of your premises either. I dont think you realize that you haven’t really said anything other than bloviate words that dont cohere into anything meaningful

@comeasyouare4545

@12345shushi Apparently I have said something that hits home. Do atheist believe in a afterlife? Atheists believe that humans do not have souls nor an afterlife. Even though it is a naturally parallel concept to atheism shared by many rational people it is not necessarily a common belief to all atheists and is no way a claim of atheism itself. So you haven’t really said anything in response, Have you?

@12345shushi

@comeasyouare4545 what I’m saying, is that you just say stuff and they don’t really amount nor prove anything. Take for example a belief in a afterlife, whether one is a theist or an atheist, isn’t the same exact belief as the existence of God. It may be correlated, more closer to theism than atheism, but the belief and existence of the afterlife isn’t mutually exclusive to either theism or atheism definitively just like 1+1=2.

Again you just say stuff, but fail to understand that you aren’t making any real points. I could care less if Jim Jones was a theist (of whatever variety), an atheist (of whatever variety) or whatever metaphysical views he held to, actually what does matter and is relevant and proveable was that he was working with the cia

Again atheists like yourself like to say a lot of stuff without actually saying anything meaningful. I mean you just avoid Jim Jone’s own words saying that he is an atheist. Rather, as a desperate atheist apologist you respond with what you believe to be a nail in the coffin “but ummm he said weell seee eeeaaccchhh ottthhaa inn theeee aftawlifeee” without explaining how those words really help make your conclusive case.

What if he was saying those words to comfort his cult followers who they themselves were communist atheists, who followed their messaiah blindly selling everything that they had? Just because he said those words, it doesn’t really say much, just like if I were to say “it’s raining cats and dogs outside” or “I’ll remain a bachelor until my death”, or if an atheist says “you are doing God’s work” etc.

In your case, those words alone may make it seem like he was a type of theist that perhaps is somehow reconciable with communism and it’s atheistic metaphysical pressupositions, but when taking together with his other statements where he definitevly answers his metaphysical beliefs about God’s existence, it’s the case that he’s just saying words of comfort to his scared followers,

which everyone usually says without much thought, or some sort of panpsychiest atheistic belief that he msy have had, who knows, nothing conclusive on that statement, nor anything that would warrant it to be an important indicator of his personal metaphysical views.

The one who seems troubled or disturbed about this is you. I’ve seen spiritual abuses in churches, heard of disturbing cases of cultic and religious abuse from power hungrey spiritual leaders (some theists, pantheists, atheists, etc), and it doesn’t make me question whether God exists or not, all it tells me is that humans are curroptable species that seek power, who are welling to defame and pollute the sacred and capitalize on their on personal sacrilegious gains, so what?

It seems that you are having quite a difficult time in coming ino terms with the stone cold reality of the depravities and atrocities commited under atheism, I mean atheists killed and murdered more in the 20th century alone than all of the religious wars and persecutions from Christianity, Talmudism, Islam, Hinduism, etc put together from all of the other previous centuries combined.

I don’t really care about this argument in using that to prove God’s existence as that isn’t a strong relevant argument like other ones, and plus, what people call themselves as followers of says nothing about the primary sources of said religions or metaphysocal worldviews. It seems that you can’t come to terms with people believing that there doesn’t exist God, and that they are capable of doing what Jim Jones did, or worse.

@comeasyouare4545

@12345shushi Just like what Kent, And Matt are saying [in the video] don’t amount to proving anything. Sorry I’m an atheist and don’t have the slightest belief in a god, or a afterlife. And no! ,many there did it because Jim Jones was their god. And He was telling them in his final words that they would meet again in another place. Now he might not have believed in a god, but he saw himself as god. Whether he was a atheist, or not isn’t the point. The point is that he was is own god, and his followers were no more atheist, then The Germans that followed Hitler. Those people weren’t killed in the name of atheism. They were killed in the name of Jim Jones a self proclaimed god, not the Messiah. Of course he was an atheist to all other gods. Sort of like you are.

@kenammi355

Please don’t misunderstand: since I am NOT an Atheist then I’m not “trying to disown Jim Jones” since he self-identified as an Atheist: as the preponderance of the evidence shows.

You seem to be literally inventing reasons to purposefully avoid the preponderance of the evidence (did you additionally read the articles I linked in the info section?).

You merely assert, “If he was in fact an atheist his followers weren’t,” you fail to note that Atheists (by any other name) have had “churches” for many, many years, and you seem to be imposing upon him your subjective definition of Atheism and demands about what Atheists do or don’t believe–sounds like you’re pushing dogmatheism.

You would have to listen to a lot of his teachings in order to determine, from context, what he meant by “another place” and “mother.”

Atheists such as Michael Newdown claim that Atheism is a religion, take it up with them, please.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 Yes! I understand that he said he was an atheist. I am not disputing that. What I’m saying is that He claimed to be god, and that he was an atheist to all other gods. sort of like what theist do when they say that theirs is the true god, and are atheist to all other gods. If you check, you’ll find this true. I’m sure you’ve heard this atheism is no more a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Theism is based in doctrine, and dogma. Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma. It is not a different, or counter doctrine or dogma. I always think a parable is the best way to explain concepts to theist.

Once upon a time about two hundred thousand years ago. Two Hunters were sitting by a fire on a clear and star filled night. They had been contemplating the meaning of their existence. after a long pause in the discussion, one of the hunters said: I believe there has to be a meaning, and a purpose for our existence. A designer. The other hunter pondered this for a few moments, and then stood up, and said: I told you not to eat those mushrooms.

Hence your first atheist.

@JA-jx1hk

Bruh lmao I bet you feel like a genius for that silly little famous atheist hypothetical you came up with 😂 the argument is that Jim Jones himself was atheist and realized the conclusion of his atheism so he didn’t really care what he did to those people because to an atheist it doesn’t matter at the end of the day. Stay coping

@comeasyouare4545 replying to a certain, “Whiskey Shaman” who seems to have deleted their comments:

Yeah! Who says. Just how does it do that? Get back to me with evidence.

Kind of of a gigantic leap there. How about a nature process that follows un-understood processes. see natural processes are evident, magic isn’t Sorry it does prove one thing, that theist when they don’t understand something play the god of the gaps card.

Nope! what I understand is theist believe in the scientific method, until it comes into conflict with their religious beliefs. Like I said it is a theory based on evidence. Not a theory based on magic. Again since we don’t know for a fact, and it is based on evidence. You could call it our best educated guess based on that evidence. Now magic did it, is an unfounded jumped to conclusion.

Because you are just another unknower claiming there’s a knower. without knowing. Because they don’t want to admit then don’t know, and are afraid of not knowing. See how that works.

I repeat my previous copy and paste: Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. What did I win? You still haven’t told me what I won. Again with, or without that method either scientifically, or philosophically you can’t prove the need of a god. I’ve always find it strange, or funny when a theist will argue with the scientific method , and then denounce it. Kind of makes you think they’re not playing with a full deck. don’t worry I thought that of you that way all a long.

Look I’m getting tired of trying to educate you. I think you’re smart enough to look that up yourself. So why not just do that, and get back to me with the point you’re trying to make.

I admit I’m ignorant , I don’t have to invent stories to believe I’m not. Go ahead refute my lack of belief. See you can’t and you want to know why? Because you have to prove your worldview first.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Well but, in a manner of speaking, Atheism is auto-theistic: Atheists put themselves in the place of God in their lives—God says, “You shall have no gods besides me” and Atheists say, “I shall have no gods beside myself.” Daniel Dennett argued that even though he was an Atheist, Joseph Stalin believed in God since he was his own god.

So, I agree, “he said he was an atheist” and there’s no “disputing that.” From that follows that anything goes, including, “He claimed to be god.”

There are Atheists such as Michael Newdow who claim that Atheism is a religion and Atheists (by any other name) have had “churches,” etc. for many years.

Theism is based in doctrine, and dogma and Atheism is based in doctrine, and dogmatheism. But when you assert, “Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma” you seem to miss that it is a doctrine and a dogma to affirm, “Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma.”

Moreover, you merely imply that there’s something wrong with accidentally existing apes holding to doctrine, and dogma but don’t bother saying what, on your worldview.

Your metaphor fails for the same reason: wrong with accidentally existing apes believing that “there has to be a meaning, and a purpose for our existence” even if based on eating mushrooms?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 Sorry I don’t believe I’m god. You that believe in god are putting yourselves up as gods. You’ll have to explain how he was an atheist to himself believing he was god. What do they pray to in atheist churches, what doctrine, or dogma do the aspire to. Sorry atheism is not a religion. That something that the religious do. And I don’t recall any atheist church as you call them following any religion. I will repeat it again, maybe you missed it. Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Don’t try to bring us down to your level. Oh! I see you like my parable. And I will have to side with modern man that has existed on the face of the earth for two hundred thousand years. You guys are proving devolution by the way. With every comment.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 Now let’s get back to Kent. Where in the bible does it say that two of every kind of dinosaurs got on the ark. Is he just making that shit up, when he says it’s the literal word of god. Now he reject the earth is flat But the Bible clearly describes it as flat.

1) The Earth is flat and circular.(Isaiah 40:22, Proverbs

8:27, Genesis 10-11, Zechariah 9: 9 &10 )

2) Israel is in the centre of the Flat Earth. (Ezekiel 5:5 &

Ezekiel 38:12 )

3) The Earth is supported by Pillars (1 Samuel 2:8,

Psalm 75:3 , Job 9:6, Job 38: 4 – 6 )

4) The Earth sits in the Great Deep (Psalm 24:2 ,

Psalm 136: 6 , Exodus 20: 4

So why isn’t he taken that literally ?

That would be to much for even him. The theme park owner.

@comeasyouare4545

Whiskey Shaman Nope! I thought it would be a good change from copy and paste. You know break things up a little. And I think my definition are spot on, even the one about theist. Unless you don’t believe in a god, or gods. While I have one thing to grant you, you’re hard headed. It must be from all that bible beating you got.

Tell them to stop hitting you in the head.

That’s my mood.

Your assumption is unfounded since you don’t understand the epistemic standards. See I don’t know if you do, or don’t understand them. But I just like to say shit to make myself look smart (sarcasm)

I wouldn’t hold my breath You’re capable of looking your own definition up. Again with the leading questions. Get to your point, which I’m beginning to believe you don’t have one. But I do enjoy the banter, it’s good for the soul, No! No! that’s not right I don’t believe we have a soul. Maybe it’s good for the psyche would be a better choice of words. Look I’m going to have to start charging for your education if this continues.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Please mind your manners.

That people who “believe in god are putting yourselves up as gods” is an incoherent category error (not that it matters on Atheism).

I don’t have to explain that, the Atheist missionary Daniel Dennett does and you’ll have to ask Atheists about what they do in their “churches” and you’ll have to tell the Atheist missionary Michael Newdow that Atheism is not a religion.

You oddly state, “So why isn’t he taken that literally ?” as a jump to a conclusion without a premise so I’ll leave you to work that one out. But you may want to be aware that literally refers to taking as it was intended so that genre is taken into consideration.

The phrase “every kind of dinosaurs” is likely an incoherent category error since dinosaurs would consist of one “kind.”

But when you (mistakenly) say “the Bible clearly describes it as flat” you imply he’s contradicting the Bible and that you condemn contradiction but only as yet another jump to a conclusion since you didn’t bother telling me what’s wrong with contradictions, on your worldview.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 Yes, when you believe there is a god, and you speak for god. You are putting yourselves up as gods.

Again what is worshiped in a atheist church? The word church: church, in Christian doctrine, the Christian religious community as a whole, or a body or organization of Christian believers.

The Greek word ekklēsia, which came to mean church, was originally applied in the Classical period to an official assembly of citizens. In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament (3rd–2nd century BCE), the term ekklēsia is used for the general assembly of the Jewish people, especially when gathered for a religious purpose such as hearing the Law (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:10, 18:16). In the New Testament it is used of the entire body of believing Christians throughout the world (e.g., Matthew 16:18), of the believers in a particular area (e.g., Acts 5:11), and also of the congregation meeting in a particular house—the “house-church” (e.g., Romans 16:5).

Now does the word church hold up to what artiest are doing. Atheist churches aim to provide some features of a religious congregation – fellowship and collective enjoyment – while forgoing any belief in a deity or the supernatural.

So do you see the contradiction in the use of the word church. I would call them fellowships. But what’s in a name?

@comeasyouare4545

Now let’s get to taken it as intended. Apparently it has a very brood intension. It means what ever you want it to mean. The Bible categorizes the Bat among the “BIRDS” in the list of unclean animals. According to these verses, Bat is a “BIRD” that should be “DETESTED” and “abominated” and it is a symbol of darkness, desolation or ruin. Here again, you notice the obvious contradiction between the Bible and Science. Bat is a bird says Bible!

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 If (and that’s a big IF) I’m putting myself up as God: what’s wrong with that on Atheism?

Again, you’ll have to ask Atheists about what they do in their “churches” if you don’t like what they say and do then ask them about it.

Overall, you seem to be attempting to distract from the issue by nitpicking anything at which you can grasp: Atheism 101 tactic.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Taken it as intended is reading comprehension 101, it refers to allowing a text to speak for itself, to tell us how to understand it, it’s the 100% exact opposite of “It means what ever you want it to mean.” But what does it matter, on Atheism, if Kent is reading a text as per whatever he wants it to mean?

Likewise with the bat bird thing: so what—on Atheism? Besides, you’re committing a basic logical error or looking at the issue anachronistically: you begin AFTER someone taxonomically decided to attempt to define what is a bird and what is a bat and how to categorize them and then you are going back in time to claim that however didn’t follow standard that didn’t exist until MILLENNIA later is wrong so you discredited yourself whilst leaving the Bible unscathed.

Besides, have you even read one single article about that issue? Did you carefully investigate the Hebrew word you have as “bird” (not modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew), or do any such things?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 Telling, and being supported is the difference between fiction, and nonfiction. I think you’re confusing churches with fellowships. Kent shouldn’t have been teaching first grade science. He clearly doesn’t understand, or accept the scientific method.

A bat isn’t a bird period. Even in the bible which identifies different types of birds, it never just identifies them as just being able to fly. In fact there several birds that can’t fly.

How do know what I’ve read? No! it has nothing to do with my logic. It has to do with how you spin what is actually said in the bible. The bible fails as a science book. It make several false claims about nature, and it is evident. There is no way around it.

Noah. No where in the bible does it say that two of every type of dinosaurs where on the bible. By the definition used by type. There should have been two of the bird dinosaurs, two of the walking, and two of the swimming. What about all the insects, and two of every fresh water fish. How about the microscopic plant’s and animals. and Bactria, and viruses. See they didn’t have a clue about them. They though disease was caused by evil spirits. There are literally millions, and millions of different types. What did they feed them each other. what did they eat when they landed on a desolate mountain top. How did the kangaroos get back to Australia. Hop across the water.

So No! Kent is a dinosaur theme park owner that scams young earth believers. Has he started serving his time yet for spousal abuse?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Perhaps “Telling, and being supported is the difference between fiction, and nonfiction” but on Atheism it matters not if one believes that fiction is actually nonfiction since there’d be no universal imperative to adhere to one and not the other.

Unsure why you refer to the scientific method—which is premised on biblical theology.

Now, I asked you three questions in the previous comment and you simply ignored them, including, “Besides, have you even read one single article about that issue? Did you carefully investigate the Hebrew word you have as ‘bird’ (not modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew), or do any such things?”

Your implied answer is clearly “No” which is why you know not of what you speak. Friend, you simply don’t understand the issue you seek to argue since you’ve not looked into the linguistics of it so you’re merely arguing anachronistically (not that it matters on Atheism) by referring to English words that refer to modern taxonomy.

Now, you say “The bible…make[s] several false claims about nature, and it is evident” and you apparently think it’s so evidence that you fails to evidence it which makes that a mere assertion: plus, most importantly, you don’t bother elucidating what would be wrong with that “The bible” supposedly, “make[s] several false claims about nature, and it is evident” on a worldview whereby there’s no universal imperative to reject false claims about accidental nature.

Recall that this is about what would seem to be one dinosaur “kind” but you now referred to “every type of dinosaurs” so it seems you may be attempting to move the goalpost (not that it matters on Atheism).

But then again, as you noted: the generic term “dinosaur” covers a lot of ground.

Many insects do well even if they are hibernating in mud as do seeds and why would there be fish in an ark that is floating on water?

What about

I don’t know to who you’re referring by “They” so can’t deal with “though disease was caused by evil spirits.”

One theory is that kangaroos get to Australia (why say “back”?) by walking across what may theorize was a supercontinent: Pangea.

But you have to deal with how kangaroos resulted from a series of accidents.

You imply something’s wrong with “spousal abuse” but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with one accidentally existing ape abusing another accidentally existing ape within an accidentally existing universe wherein there’s no universal imperative for one accidentally existing ape to not abuse another accidentally existing ape.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 It’s as if you literally don’t hear yourself speaking and are clearly not applying your world-view’s implications to your world-view, ironically.

I mean you begin by imply denying “there’s some universal truth” and end with, “There is no denying this.” That’s a world-class, classic textbook case of a non-sequitur (not that it matters on Atheism) since if “there’s” no “universal truth” then we can literally deny anything we want so “There is…denying this.”

By the way, is it a universal truth that there’s no universal truth?

The scientific method is based in the logic of philosophy premise on Biblical theology which is why it’s evidence based. Otherwise, if based on Atheism there’d be no justification for demanding/expecting evidence. That’s part of why Atheism has utterly nothing at all to do with science and science has utterly nothing at all to do with Atheism.

Since you positively affirmed, “Theism is based on an imagined unfound conclusion” you must prove it (not on Atheism, however—ironically).

When you say “religion is in conflict with the scientific method” you’re speaking generically enough to not be saying anything at all. But, FYI, in general the phrase, “religion is in conflict with the scientific method” is very well recognized as a mere late 1800s AD myth.

One reason that speaking in vague terms such as “religion” is that it covers just about what every person on the planet believes even when those various beliefs contradict each other (not that it matters on Atheism). Thus, I’ll let the 99% of other humans speak for themselves but biblical faith means coming to a conclusion based on previous knowledge: https://truefreethinker.com/what-is-faith

Now, when you go on to complain about “the universe, and everything in it was created in six days” it’s irrelevant to your world-view since on Atheism you’ve no imperative to demand adherence to reality/truth/facts so you’re just emoting.

Friend, before you deny that insects hibernate please look into it.

You also merely assert that seeds and fish were dealing with salt water when the saltiness of water seems to have come about due to sediment accumulating in water intra and post-flood—but did you actually verify that no seeds survive salt water?

But this is disinteresting since the point is that it matters not on your worldview and you’re just complaining based on subjective personal preferences du jour based on hidden assumptions.

Did you move the goalpost (not that it matters on Atheism) when offering, “Examples of inflictions caused by demons” when I noted, “I don’t know to who you’re referring by ‘They’ so can’t deal with “though disease was caused by evil spirits.”

You seem to me missing the point: yes, some times some diseases were caused by evil spirits/demons but you made a typically blanket statement since there’s zero indication in the Bible that all disease is caused by then. In fact, if doctors in the late 1800s AD would have followed the Torah, they wouldn’t have gone from dissecting corpses to delivering babies without proper cleansing in-between, etc.

So, if there are not statements about that all disease is caused by then and many, many, many texts about clinically dealing with infectious diseases such as leprosy (which included regimens of quarantining and repeated examinations) then they knew very well about micro organisms which is evidenced by their actions in dealing with them: have you ever read those portions of the Torah?

Now, if your subjective definition of Atheistic Evolution is true then, guess what, we’ve come full circle and are back to that the bed you made is that reality/truth/facts is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to do so which means all you’ve done is to emote: feel free to please forget the other portions of our already too long discussion and focus on this fact (not that facts matter on Atheism, of course).

Lastly, if countless answers to 2+2=? Have been invent throughout recorded history would that mean there’s no true answer?

By the way: you utterly ignore the questions I asked you, especially at the end, which I realize is very convenient for you but then what about the fact that you’re incapable of dealing with them due to your world-view’s fundamental level failure?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 You seem to consistently fail to apply your world-view to your world-view, ironically (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism): you’ve no universal imperative to imply condemning (supposedly) double standards (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) which you merely asserted (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) nor (supposedly) moving the goalpost (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

That which convinces you or not isn’t a standard.

Ironically, you, who must believe that reality is accidental, complain that I (supposedly) spin what I believe into a reality where it doesn’t exist (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) and say it’s delusion when on your world-view our ability to discern reality is also accidental, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it.

I mean, do you ever actually consider and incorporate your world-view’s implications–even when they are pointed out to you time and again (and again and again) or do you hate Atheism so much you’ll keep refusing to sleep in the bed you’ve made?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 You have the false assumption that lack of belief in a god is based in science. It isn’t. Well before the advent of the scientific method there were non- believers. This is evident. So while many theist see the scientific method in conflict with their religious beliefs. They don’t realize that the scientific method is based in, and on philosophy. The worldview as you call it, is a generalization of only a very small part of a worldview. Just like theist, atheist hold a wide spectrum of political, and philosophical beliefs. So no It isn’t a worldview no more then yours is.

And your made up explanation is just one of many.

Your birth, and your consciousness are an accident of chance. Are you claiming they are not.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 You keep on utterly ignoring the key issues and just continue skimming the surface so here are the same issues, again:

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts are theists who “see the scientific method in conflict with their religious beliefs” even when the scientific method was premised upon biblical theology which you term “philosophy”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts misrepresent accidentally existing apes who are Atheists? Also, indeed, “atheist[s] hold a wide spectrum of political, and philosophical beliefs” that are all, by definition, infected by Atheism so that Atheism is their worldview since they make decisions about such issues based on their core, based on dogmatheism.

If you deny Atheism is a world-view then you disagree with Dawkins (which is fine, I do it all the time) but if it’s not your world-view then in what area of your accidental thinking about anything and everything do you believe in God’s existence?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 What you say is utterly irrelevant on your worldview since on your worldview there’s no universal imperatives to be logical, nor ethical, etc. Now, if Atheism is just “only one very narrow aspect of what would be considered a world view” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything at all do you actually believe in God’s existence?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know. I would think that it is more honest to accept my ignorance then accept a story that is not supported other then ones imagination. I do not pretend to know to hide my fear of not knowing. I can only base my beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm. Even you can only imagine from a materialistic vantage. Of what a spiritual would be. Logic is the bases of philosophy, and philosophy is the bases of science, and theism is the bases of an imagined explanation, supported by the fear of not knowing.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Indeed, I utterly agree that “My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know.”

By you seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.

What evidence is there in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm that leads to the conclusion that you can only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm?

Now, if you want to conclude that the materialistic realm is accidental, and so is all it contains including you, your brain, your thoughts then there no universal imperative to only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm.

Thus, that’s totally self-defeating.

In fact, you refer to being “more honest” without a premise for being honest in the first place nor for avoiding basing views on “ones imagination” nor for appealing to or employing logic, philosophy, science, etc.

See, you collapsed your entire worldview.

FYI: the scientific method was premised on biblical theology and biblical theism is supported by many things including what we know.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 So basically you just confirmed everything I said, but you made an exception for god, but not just any god the one you’re smoking. Didn’t need four paragraph to say that. And no! the scientific method is based on philosophy, You know one of the first groups to openly question the whole god claim.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Right, so “My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know” but about the actually existing one who is the explanation for the known.

On your worldview even seeking to know anything is a subjective personal preference du jour.

Thus, gain, “seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.”

You ignored, “What evidence is there in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm that leads to the conclusion that you can only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm?”

You ignored, “Now, if you want to conclude that the materialistic realm is accidental, and so is all it contains including you, your brain, your thoughts then there no universal imperative to only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm. Thus, that’s totally self-defeating.”

You ignored, “In fact, you refer to being ‘more honest’ without a premise for being honest in the first place nor for avoiding basing views on ‘ones imagination’ nor for appealing to or employing logic, philosophy, science, etc. See, you collapsed your entire worldview.”

And as for “the scientific method is based on philosophy,” just swapping out a word doesn’t change history: the scientific method was premised on biblical philosophy and biblical theism is supported by many things including what we know.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355 What evidence? You attributing things that are known to god is not evidence of god. It is evidence of an excuse.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545 Again (and again), “seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.”

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.