# Is the atheistic view/belief/reality that there is free-will? - Thx.



## RegularJoe (Jan 17, 2018)

i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be .... 
that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never; 
or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ... 
i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
- Many thanks.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be ....
> that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never;
> or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ...
> i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
> - Many thanks.



If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 17, 2018)

Good question! My answer is, I don’t know. I think it depends largely on what we mean by free will. Sam Harris has a pretty good speech on this topic and says research into the brain is showing that free will is an illusion. It’s interesting to consider.

On a side note if you consider yourself an agnostic then odds are you’re already an atheist sitting on the fence. There aren’t many theists honest enough to admit they don’t know if their beliefs are true.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.



Ok bullethead... which god do you believe in?  You’re in a safe place. It’s ok to come out of the closet.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Ok bullethead... which god do you believe in?  You’re in a safe place. It’s ok to come out of the closet.


Lololol
Like I've stated many times in here, if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me.

I believe "free will" is a made up excuse for all of the things many believers say should happen but do not.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 18, 2018)

The question of free will seems purely academic to me.  Does it matter?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Lololol
> Like I've stated many times in here, if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me.
> 
> I believe "free will" is a made up excuse for all of the things many believers say should happen but do not.



Sorry, I misread your post. Thought you said, if I were an atheist.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 18, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> The question of free will seems purely academic to me.  Does it matter?



Reminds me of Hitchens. "Yes I have free will. I have no choice but to have it."


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 18, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> i am endeavoring to understand that if i were to become an atheist (not an agnostic) what would my view of free-will (aka, self-will) be ....
> that it exists all the time, some of the time, or never;
> or, :- ) something i may well be missing all together due, perhaps, to how i have composed and am presenting this question ...
> i am trying to ask the question in a 100% objective manner.
> - Many thanks.



Your view of freewill won't be determined by your atheism.  The arguments for and against freewill are the same if you're deist or not.  I can tell you why I find the notion of freewill suspect as an atheist and I can tell you why I would be compelled to disregard freewill if I were a Christian or even a deist.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 18, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> The question of free will seems purely academic to me.  Does it matter?



It doesn't seem to matter.  It may affect how you view justice as it relates to crime and punishment, though.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 18, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> The question of free will seems purely academic to me.  Does it matter?


In my view ... your question is one so very, very worthy that it should be asked about _everything_ our senses tell us that we are perceiving.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 18, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If you were an atheist there would be nowhere for free will to come from.


Thanks.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 18, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> ... I find the notion of freewill suspect as an atheist...


Thanks.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 18, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> ... I think it depends largely on what we mean by free will ....


Yup ... 'what are the assumptions' always does help a bit.
Merriam Webster ses: 
"Definition of _'free will'_ -
1 : voluntary choice or decision.
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." 
at ....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 18, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Yup ... 'what are the assumptions' always does help a bit.
> Merriam Webster ses:
> "Definition of _'free will'_ -
> 1 : voluntary choice or decision.
> ...



If you really want to dig into the subject, try to find an example of a choice you can make that isn't determined by prior causes.


----------



## Israel (Jan 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> If you really want to dig into the subject, try to find an example of a choice you can make that isn't determined by prior causes.



Yes.


----------



## Israel (Jan 19, 2018)

It has always puzzled me a bit with what ease Webster is resorted to.
I suppose for some it is useful. If it is to be the established standard of meaning, agreed upon by all conversing, then also I suppose there is some utility to keeping everyone drawing closely within some lines. But then, there would have to also be an a priori  that _drawing within lines_ is of itself some exquisite or supernal demand.

But what has manifestly happened here?
Ambush (I believe) has pointed out the reference to the square circle in the explanation, the thing that by seeking to explain what "the thing means" has had to manufacture the non existent in support. The lesson of both poverty of language, and its underlying craftiness to support itself as useful and thereby further endorse its ultimate utility _over all_ is exposed.

If I say "spirit is sole communicator" I still have resorted to language. Regardless of whether this is seen as simply another manufacture becomes moot in the extreme for the man to whom it is already revealed that language as we most commonly know it, commonly accept it, is also useless in the extreme...except as _method of concealment_.

Like the example of choice. Discover all that _is not being chosen_, and you will discover the only thing remaining that must be. Discover the _all that is not being said_ (or can be) and see what alone must remain.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> It has always puzzled me a bit with what ease Webster is resorted to.
> I suppose for some it is useful. If it is to be the established standard of meaning, agreed upon by all conversing, then also I suppose there is some utility to keeping everyone drawing closely within some lines. But then, there would have to also be an a priori  that _drawing within lines_ is of itself some exquisite or supernal demand.
> 
> But what has manifestly happened here?
> ...



You don't know what that thing is anymore than anyone else.  You think you do but it's in your head.  Better to be an honest man and say "There's this thought in my head.  I'm gonna call it Jesus but I can't be sure that's what it really is".  

Be an honest man.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution.  So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.

What does that say about folks who do not love their kids?  And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution.  So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.
> 
> What does that say about folks who do not love their kids?  And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?


You mean like the animals that abandon their young and other animals who will nurse and raise the young of others that were killed or died?

Maybe the texas couple who adopted 13 kids and had them chained up for years is an example of a god?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You mean like the animals that abandon their young and other animals who will nurse and raise the young of others that were killed or died?
> 
> Maybe the texas couple who adopted 13 kids and had them chained up for years is an example of a god?



I'm asking what it means.  If we are survival engines, then the wiring got all kinda messed up in all the examples, or they chose not to cooperate.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

I think a lot about this, the nature v nurture, debate and how much of what we do is genetic and how much is response.  If love is a genetic process (hard wiring), then those who don't have bad genes.   There is a good case for this given that people who live certain lifestyles tend to produce people who live the same..........or, are they just repeating the actions they have seen in others?

The brain learns certain patterns, and these patterns become cemented over time.  But, could our "evolutionary response" be just that, learned behavior?  Environment?   This topic is very interesting to me for a lot of reasons.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution.  So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.
> 
> What does that say about folks who do not love their kids?  And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?



I tend to think this way.  It doesn't sound nice to reduce the love for a child to that base level, but it IS just a chemical reaction.  As to why some love kids and some drown them in a bathtub, well, why are some folks born intelligent and some mentally handicapped?  Gay VS straight? 

From what I can see in my life and others so far, it's not nature vs. nurture.  Its nature and nurture.  They exist together.  Sometimes one is more powerful than the other.  It depends on the person, I reckon.


----------



## Israel (Jan 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You don't know what that thing is anymore than anyone else.  You think you do but it's in your head.  Better to be an honest man and say "There's this thought in my head.  I'm gonna call it Jesus but I can't be sure that's what it really is".
> 
> Be an honest man.



Interesting response in its context.
Of what is said might be best determined when including at least some, or all that isn't said.

You know, how liars are.

So, didn't you leave out the only part that mattered? Do you think that was an accident?

"Be an honest man"    
(like me).


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> From what I can see in my life and others so far, it's not nature vs. nurture.  Its nature and nurture.  They exist together.  Sometimes one is more powerful than the other.  It depends on the person, I reckon.



I agree with this.  But, that makes me think we have a will, which may be limited by "nature."  

So, if there is a God, then the framework of nature is his.  If there is no God, then evolution hasn't quite perfected the process just yet...........would we trend further away from "nurture" if that's the case?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I agree with this.  But, that makes me think we have a will, which may be limited by "nature."
> 
> So, if there is a God, then the framework of nature is his.  If there is no God, then evolution hasn't quite perfected the process just yet...........would we trend further away from "nurture" if that's the case?



If there is a god, then he/she/it hasn't perfected the process just yet.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It doesn't seem to matter.  It may affect how you view justice as it relates to crime and punishment, though.



I am listening to Sam Harris's lecture on Free Will as I type this, and I'm sure you have already done so.  

I think we can tweak our justice system from its current form to something better, certainly.  If we determine that a criminal acts a certain way because of a brain tumor, then remove it and see if the patterns change.  I think there is a path to rehabilitation in cases such as this.  If we decide that there is no free will, that everything we do is determined by something in our past, we still have to govern.  We can't let every thief walk free just because we understand they had a bad childhood and therefore they cant help being a thief.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I'm asking what it means.  If we are survival engines, then the wiring got all kinda messed up in all the examples, or they chose not to cooperate.



Are you sure what you think is "messed up" isn't actually a benefit?


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you sure what you think is "messed up" isn't actually a benefit?



I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> If there is a god, then he/she/it hasn't perfected the process just yet.



Was perfection intended?  Evolution would have to go tgat direction if it is geared towards optimal survival.

Then we would also have to define perfect, I guess.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.



What percentage of our society does that represent?

Do you think humans have peaked evolutionary wise? Or do we still have a few thousand or couple million years to go?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 19, 2018)

I don't know that there is a mountaintop to reach.  I think the evolutionary map is like endless tributaries off a main river.  if we are still a species a million years from now, I'm sure there will still be imperfections and different ways to split.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.


That's because you have great kids 
(a little morbid humor)


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't know that there is a mountaintop to reach.  I think the evolutionary map is like endless tributaries off a main river.  if we are still a species a million years from now, I'm sure there will still be imperfections and different ways to split.



Exactly.
Evolution does not have a goal. The fittest tend to survive and take the species furthest. What goes on during that time is anyones guess.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What percentage of our society does that represent?
> 
> Do you think humans have peaked evolutionary wise? Or do we still have a few thousand or couple million years to go?



Bullet, the only reason I brought it up was you asked if it could be a benefit instead of a mistake. 

I have no idea if humans have peaked.........seems to me like we are on an upward swing.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's because you have great kids
> (a little morbid humor)



Well played!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, the only reason I brought it up was you asked if it could be a benefit instead of a mistake.
> 
> I have no idea if humans have peaked.........seems to me like we are on an upward swing.



We as in the humans in the USA?
Or  
We as in a cannibalistic tribe in New Guinea?

Search " Infanticide in modern times"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

https://www.sociology.org/female-infanticide-killing-the-little-girls-of-the-world/

Like so many things that we have talked about in here, Culture/society/geographic location is such an influence.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Lololol
> Like I've stated many times in here, if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me.


So..........how do you convince someone that does not want to believe?
Look up in the sky tonight if it is clear, Bible tells of making the moon and the stars (I would say go out side now and look straight at that big shining ball but I ain't that mean). Look around you of all that he has created. The day will come when you take that last breath, hopefully you have made a turn around before then and not learn of his existence the hard or I mean hot way.

Carry on


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So..........how do you convince someone that does not want to believe?
> Look up in the sky tonight if it is clear, Bible tells of making the moon and the stars (I would say go out side now and look straight at that big shining ball but I ain't that mean). Look around you of all that he has created. The day will come when you take that last breath, hopefully you have made a turn around before then and not learn of his existence the hard or I mean hot way.
> 
> Carry on



Is convincing me too great of a task for your god?
Don't give me the free will excuse.
I am open to any god that wants to contact me. 

If reading creation stories in ancient texts is what convinces you, you have a couple dozen more gods to be worshipping. 

I will let my time on Earth speak for anything that wants to judge me when I die.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 19, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So..........how do you convince someone that does not want to believe?
> Look up in the sky tonight if it is clear, Bible tells of making the moon and the stars (I would say go out side now and look straight at that big shining ball but I ain't that mean). Look around you of all that he has created. The day will come when you take that last breath, hopefully you have made a turn around before then and not learn of his existence the hard or I mean hot way.
> 
> Carry on


When you say this to a nonbeliever I'm really curious to know if it enters your mind that YOU do the EXACT same thing?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is convincing me too great of a task for your god?
> Don't give me the free will excuse.
> I am open to any god that wants to contact me.
> 
> ...





> Is convincing me too great of a task for your god?


We hear all the stories -
"I was here doing this and BAM!!! God spoke to me or did this or did that. It was God. No question. I'm changed now. I was a scumbag before but now I'm going to Heaven".
They will tell you all about how God reached out, did whatever, and left NO doubt in their mind.......
But they expect you to be convinced by them or a book or some preacher who flew in on his jet.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> We hear all the stories -
> "I was here doing this and BAM!!! God spoke to me or did this or did that. It was God. No question. I'm changed now. I was a scumbag before but now I'm going to Heaven".
> They will tell you all about how God reached out, did whatever, and left NO doubt in their mind.......
> But they expect you to be convinced by them or a book or some preacher who flew in on his jet.....


Yeah. 
I'm wanting it incorrectly.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2018)

I tried to embed the video for this from youtube but it didn't give me the option.
So, here is the website.

The Brain Creates Religion
http://bigthink.com/going-mental/the-neurological-origins-of-religious-belief

All I could get from youtube
https://youtu.be/N5y5NfIiMqY


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> if some diety wants me to know of it's existence then it would know how to do it in a way that would be convincing to me. +
> Is convincing me too great of a task for your god?....


*Yo Bullet* - 

You prompt 2 thoughts to emerge as i have carefully read all of your above posts to this point ....

1.  The 'God' _of 'The Bible'_ reports in The Bible that per that god's original plan, only _'the elect'_ed to be 'convinced' are ever _to be_ of his view.
The 'Biblical' version of God never reports that his plan had included in it to convince anyone.  
It is more on the order of ~ _folks are free to take it or leave it, & no problem._
i fully recognize & fully respect that your related view is that 'a deity,' if he/she/it were a deity :- ), _would be _inclined toward _wanting_ to convince you.
[Btw.... If one wishes to do a Bible text search on the 'elect,' it _can be expected _be found to be in hundreds of places.] 

2.  My understanding of the 'Biblical' God is that he has no intent in forcing or even 'convincing' anyone to buy into him.  
Moreover, should one wish to look around at one's reality & conclude the 'Biblical' version of 'God' had nothing to do with it.... 
the Biblical God does not say he is going to spend time trying to convince that person otherwise.  
His sort of related Bible stated view is
(i am not suggesting that you should or should not subscribe to this view :- ) 
that he has provided enough _tangible_ evidence of his existence _already_.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 20, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> *Yo Bullet* -
> 
> You prompt 2 thoughts to emerge as i have carefully read all of your above posts to this point ....
> 
> ...



I am well aware of what Biblical text says.
I also find those texts quite telling in that they are various writings by mostly anonymous authors that took centuries to write. They were assembled by men. 
I find the claims of a god capable of creation yet does not write his own handbook and leaves his supposed word in the hands of men he would know will screw it up, a bit Ungodlike. Don't you? A god that supposedly cares for his children yet allows these writings to be the source of millions of deaths....in his name.....? Really? Wouldnt a god know the repercussions of such a book?
I am convinced that these writings are the result of tribal laws coming from tribal folklore meant for a specific tribe. All man influenced and all man made. Thou Shall Not Kill was meant for memebers of your own tribe, but was certainly not a universal rule for all of humanity as killing was not only condoned but ordered in the bible.

A fault in many believers points is that they(maybe you) assume that everyone else believes that the Bible is the word of their god because the words within say so....but nonbelievers deny it full well knowing deep down that it is true. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally think anything that uses itself as the source of confirmation is the least truthful source.
If "because it says so in the bible" is legitimate proof, then the words contained in every other religions text that says so has also got to be equally as true.

Getting back to your "elect" point. I would counter it with bible also saying that all one has to do is ask and it shall be done. All one has to do is accept JC as Lord and Savior.

So which it?
Free Will or Predestination?
Willingness to accept or Never had a Chance because I am not chosen?

Or is it whichever answer is the most convenient answer for the situation?

How many people are out there accepting, worshipping, believing and going through life thinking they are the most loyal follower but when they die are not allowed in the pearly gates because they were never on the guest list?
It could be you. It could be 99% of christians.

The mental game is convincing yourself to believe in a god now so that you are taken care of later....and that "election" clause in the contract guarantees you nothing.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> We hear all the stories -
> "I was here doing this and BAM!!! God spoke to me or did this or did that. It was God. No question. I'm changed now. I was a scumbag before but now I'm going to Heaven".
> They will tell you all about how God reached out, did whatever, and left NO doubt in their mind.......
> But they expect you to be convinced by them or a book or some preacher who flew in on his jet.....


Maybe that is the problem, our preacher(s) and the ones I know don't have no jet. All of em I know drive old Toyotas, Chevrolet trucks, enjoy hunting and fishing. Matter of fact they all work full time jobs as well as some are pastors and still cannot afford no fancy new truck much less a jet. I may need to find me one of those jet flying preachers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2018)

j_seph said:


> Maybe that is the problem, our preacher(s) and the ones I know don't have no jet. All of em I know drive old Toyotas, Chevrolet trucks, enjoy hunting and fishing. Matter of fact they all work full time jobs as well as some are pastors and still cannot afford no fancy new truck much less a jet. I may need to find me one of those jet flying preachers.


I admit that jet thing is an extreme example. But a true example. Just turn on the tv.
But yes, I would imagine the vast majority of preachers are hard working family men who probably give a lot more than they receive.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 20, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> *Yo Bullet* -
> 
> You prompt 2 thoughts to emerge as i have carefully read all of your above posts to this point ....
> 
> ...


That "tangible" evidence would also be tangible evidence for every other creation story.
A person, in this case Christians, is the one who decides who "he" is. 
Different religion/belief, different "he".


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 20, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.



Me too. Another good reason why christianity is a non-starter.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am well aware of what Biblical text says.
> I also find those texts quite telling in that they are various writings by mostly anonymous authors that took centuries to write. They were assembled by men.
> I find the claims of a god capable of creation yet does not write his own handbook and leaves his supposed word in the hands of men he would know will screw it up, a bit Ungodlike. Don't you? A god that supposedly cares for his children yet allows these writings to be the source of millions of deaths....in his name.....? Really? Wouldnt a god know the repercussions of such a book?
> I am convinced that these writings are the result of tribal laws coming from tribal folklore meant for a specific tribe. All man influenced and all man made. Thou Shall Not Kill was meant for memebers of your own tribe, but was certainly not a universal rule for all of humanity as killing was not only condoned but ordered in the bible.
> ...


Heard.
Please understand that i am _not_ endeavoring to be supportive of _any_ particular faith base ideology (including atheism) in my post(s) ... merely offering what seems to me to be relevant personal _observations_.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That "tangible" evidence would also be tangible evidence for every other creation story.
> A person, in this case Christians, is the one who decides who "he" is.
> Different religion/belief, different "he".


Concur.
And, .... as well, 'the one who decides who "he" is' _not _ :- ) even works for the atheism.
All views of life, just as you say, can use much (i have added 'much') the same 'tangible' evidence.  
And, while that 'tangible' evidence may be helpful to each view of life no view of life is fully provable... thus all views of life require faith even _with_ the aforementioned 'tangible' evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

What faith is required when someone admits that they just do not know?
Not a believer, not a non believer,  but they have not found any evidence to satisfy them that a god exists. What does faith have to do with that Regular Joe?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Concur.
> And, .... as well, 'the one who decides who "he" is' _not _ :- ) even works for the atheism.
> All views of life, just as you say, can use much (i have added 'much') the same 'tangible' evidence.
> And, while that 'tangible' evidence may be helpful to each view of life no view of life is fully provable... thus all views of life require faith even _with_ the aforementioned 'tangible' evidence.





> And, .... as well, 'the one who decides who "he" is' _not _ :- ) even works for the atheism.


An Atheist does not decide who "he" is not.
An Atheist does not believe there even is a "he" because there is no evidence that a "he" exists.


> thus all views of life require faith


No, not all views.
The view that God doesn't exist doesn't require faith.
Faith in something is when you believe it to be true despite the fact that there is no proof its true.
That a god or God exists cant, in fact, be proven.
No faith required. Just facts or a lack thereof.


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> An Atheist does not decide who "he" is not.
> An Atheist does not believe there even is a "he" because there is no evidence that a "he" exists.
> 
> No, not all views.
> ...



Walt do you think atheist dwell too much on what can be explained by man and don't explore the spirit?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Walt do you think atheist dwell too much on what can be explained by man and don't explore the spirit?



Richie, the spirit is a person wanting a god so much that they subconsciously convince themself that some outside force dwells within. 
Its not necessarily a bad thing....to a point.


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Richie, the spirit is a person wanting a god so much that they subconsciously convince themself that some outside force dwells within.
> Its not necessarily a bad thing....to a point.



Bullet, what do you think about American Indians spiritual believes before the white man came?


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

The Sioux worshiped Wakan Tanka before any outside influence. Where would this belief had come from?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Bullet, what do you think about American Indians spiritual believes before the white man came?



I know I've said this before and have linked sites to go with it...
Early man grieved at the loss of friends and loved ones. At some point someone was talking to a deceased loved one out of frustration, looking for guidance or simply because they missed them. I think that happened a lot and was done by many.
At some other point someone in the group or tribe or clan claimed that they can communicate with the dead and relayed what the spirit(s) told them.  The longer it went on the more complicated the next shawman got. Add in some hallucinogenic plants or mushrooms and the entire crew has a spiritual experience. Let it snowball from there.

That is a very loose and watered down version. It would make a great read to research the history of the earliest beliefs and religions to see where it went as humans advanced.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The Sioux worshiped Wakan Tanka before any outside influence. Where would this belief had come from?



Yes, Wakan Tanka. The various forces within nature. Also known as Grandfather and many other names.
The Lakota worshipped him too. As did other tribes.

Not odd that many tribes and cultures used family names for their gods and spirits, it ties in with the early history of religion(s) that I talked about earlier.


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I know I've said this before and have linked sites to go with it...
> Early man grieved at the loss of friends and loved ones. At some point someone was talking to a deceased loved one out of frustration, looking for guidance or simply because they missed them. I think that happened a lot and was done by many.
> At some other point someone in the group or tribe or clan claimed that they can communicate with the dead and relayed what the spirit(s) told them.  The longer it went on the more complicated the next shawman got. Add in some hallucinogenic plants or mushrooms and the entire crew has a spiritual experience. Let it snowball from there.
> 
> That is a very loose and watered down version. It would make a great read to research the history of the earliest beliefs and religions to see where it went as humans advanced.



Agreed. I think human beings are spiritual beings by nature. And have been since the beginning. How ever you believe that came about. I think that is why if find this aaa forum so interesting. That you have never had a spiritual experience so you don't believe others have. When there have been witness to them for eon's. You think they are all chemical reactions in the brain but yet you have never had one. Interesting.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Walt do you think atheist dwell too much on what can be explained by man and don't explore the spirit?


Kind of depends on what you mean by "spirit".
I don't believe "spirit" is a separate thing. I don't believe you have a spirit like you have a heart, a spleen, a kidney etc.
I believe a persons "spirit" resides in their brain and is a combination of their thoughts, experiences, chemical make up etc.
Like when one would say "that horse has had his spirit broken".
There is nothing physically broken inside of him, its that the horse's experiences etc. have all been negative so he is now "depressed".
Soooo I believe exploring one's spirit is more or less the same thing as exploring one's psychology.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Agreed. I think human beings are spiritual beings by nature. And have been since the beginning. How ever you believe that came about. I think that is why if find this aaa forum so interesting. That you have never had a spiritual experience so you don't believe others have. When there have been witness to them for eon's. You think they are all chemical reactions in the brain but yet you have never had one. Interesting.



Who said that I never had one?
When I was actively involved in believing in god I had a few feelings of being overwhelmed but in a good way. Almost like a positive panic attack. Immediately I KNEW what it was. It HAD to be god. There was nothing else it could be.
Until I found out that there were other reasons for it.
Everyone experiences Anxiety and Stress. How an individual reacts and interprets it are often a Million different things.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

Richie, read up on positive stress.


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Kind of depends on what you mean by "spirit".
> I don't believe "spirit" is a separate thing. I don't believe you have a spirit like you have a heart, a spleen, a kidney etc.
> I believe a persons "spirit" resides in their brain and is a combination of their thoughts, experiences, chemical make up etc.
> Like when one would say "that horse has had his spirit broken".
> ...


The non physical part of a person. The Soul.


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Richie, read up on positive stress.



Interesting. Read up on stress free.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Interesting. Read up on stress free.



Im familiar with it.
And in reality a person is always under some sort of stress. It is not always noticeable and it is not always reacted to. It could take years.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

http://stress.lovetoknow.com/about-stress/what-is-positive-stress


----------



## red neck richie (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Richie, the spirit is a person wanting a god so much that they subconsciously convince themself that some outside force dwells within.
> Its not necessarily a bad thing....to a point.


Where does this come from and why is it so prevalent. Why do isolated people believe in a spirit? With no outside influence. It seems to me as though it is something every culture has experienced. No matter how deciphered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The non physical part of a person. The Soul.


I believe the soul and the spirit are pretty much the same thing/same circumstances.
The only non physical part of a person I can think of are their thoughts. Which of course come from their brain which involves chemical make up, experiences etc.

I know that you view the soul or the spirit as a "thing" on its own that we have inside us.
I don't. I view it as a product of the brain. We just use these type of words like soul and spirit to name or describe certain emotions or actions.
"He is mean spirited"
"That kid has an old soul"
"He's my soul brother"
"We are kindred spirits"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Where does this come from and why is it so prevalent. Why do isolated people believe in a spirit? With no outside influence. It seems to me as though it is something every culture has experienced. No matter how deciphered.



Richie.
I explained how it happens in the earliest of human tribes across the globe. They talk to the dead and it snowballs from there over the years.

I dont take 3 minutes to research this stuff like you do and dismiss the things that I do not like or do not agree with. I've spent years reading as much as i can.

I've answered your Indians questions with examples.
I've answered your spirit questions with examples.
I've answered your feelings of a spirit questions with examples.

Can you explain to me why if there is one god, so many people who experience these spiritual events attribute it to different gods?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Where does this come from and why is it so prevalent. Why do isolated people believe in a spirit? With no outside influence. It seems to me as though it is something every culture has experienced. No matter how deciphered.


Now these are good questions.
I have these same questions.
Ive heard good answers. Ive heard answers that make sense. Ive heard answers that I lean toward.
BUT
I haven't heard or seen any answers that, in my mind,  convince me 100%.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

What is spirituality?

Spirituality has many definitions, but at its core spirituality helps to give your life context. It's not necessarily connected to a specific belief system or even religious worship. Instead, it arises from your connection with yourself and with others, the development of your personal value system, and your search for meaning in life


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What is spirituality?
> 
> Spirituality has many definitions, but at its core spirituality helps to give your life context. It's not necessarily connected to a specific belief system or even religious worship. Instead, it arises from your connection with yourself and with others, the development of your personal value system, and your search for meaning in life


Yes.
And all those things take place in/are a product of your brain. Whether you are religious or non religious or what religion does not determine whether you have or can have "spirituality" or not.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What faith is required when someone admits that they just do not know?
> Not a believer, not a non believer,  but they have not found any evidence to satisfy them that a god exists. What does faith have to do with that Regular Joe?


None.
That would be exactly agnostic, not atheistic.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> An Atheist does not decide who "he" is not.
> An Atheist does not believe there even is a "he" because there is no evidence that a "he" exists.
> 
> No, not all views.
> ...



Heard.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes.
> And all those things take place in/are a product of your brain. Whether you are religious or non religious or what religion does not determine whether you have or can have "spirituality" or not.



Exact-A-Mundo


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> None.
> That would be exactly agnostic, not atheistic.





RegularJoe said:


> thus all views of life require faith even with the aforementioned 'tangible' evidence.



I figured agnostic is a view, and why I asked.


----------



## Israel (Jan 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am well aware of what Biblical text says.
> I also find those texts quite telling in that they are various writings by mostly anonymous authors that took centuries to write. They were assembled by men.
> I find the claims of a god capable of creation yet does not write his own handbook and leaves his supposed word in the hands of men he would know will screw it up, a bit Ungodlike. Don't you? A god that supposedly cares for his children yet allows these writings to be the source of millions of deaths....in his name.....? Really? Wouldnt a god know the repercussions of such a book?
> I am convinced that these writings are the result of tribal laws coming from tribal folklore meant for a specific tribe. All man influenced and all man made. Thou Shall Not Kill was meant for memebers of your own tribe, but was certainly not a universal rule for all of humanity as killing was not only condoned but ordered in the bible.
> ...



There is a yes to that.
There is a no to that.

As to the yes.



> and that "election" clause in the contract guarantees you nothing.



Holding to a doctrine of election...does not at all guarantee that one is "of the elect". If I see what you may be saying correctly. It has no power (as a statement) to show final disposition (if it is being used as such) to the "later" you speak of. 

Taking one's final stand here is shown ultimately to be of no finality, whatever. In some way (or at least one way) it is no more than a description of mechanism, no? And if so, mechanism has in itself no innate (power? ability? of explanation...) its observation and conclusions made through such observation may be made to appear, by explanation, no more than randomness, to some even, chaos. (which becomes a very difficult row to hoe if one tasks themselves with proving to another...an "orderly God".)

But that is the inherent problem with tasking oneself.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. An Atheist does not decide who "he" is not.
> An Atheist does not believe there even is a "he" because there is no evidence that a "he" exists.
> 
> 2.  No, not all views.
> ...



Numerically related replies:


1.  my earlier comment which reads ....

" _And, .... as well, 'the one who decides who "he" is' not :- ) even works for the atheism._ ,"

& intended by me light heartedly, failed to communicate that which i would guess you & i would both concur (???) ....

that the atheist looks about and concludes that it all is what it is with no need &/or no thoughts that it 'got here' via some diety.

Is my above in sync, or close to being in sync, with your view?    Thx.


2.  For easy reference, my comment to which you replied was

" _thus all views of life require faith_ "

My observation here is that no view of life can be 100% _proven_ valid.  
i am not commenting that one view of life is true and another is not, even though i'd anticipate that there is only one truth.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I figured agnostic is a view, and why I asked.


Yup, my perspective 
(& am certainly willing to learn & modify :- ).... 
is that agnosticism is by definition (?) a defined 'perspective' that says more or less ~ 
no view of life can be 100% _proven_ valid,
nor view of life + faith can be 100% _proven_ valid;
& thus, agnosticism does not see itself as a view of life.
my understanding of agnosticism is that it holds that an accurate view of life is not actually knowable.

How am i doing / am i tracking _within range_ of your thinking?    Thx.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Numerically related replies:
> 
> 
> 1.  my earlier comment which reads ....
> ...


First, in the interest of full disclosure...
If I have to give myself a "label" it would be Agnostic. Or maybe Agnostic Atheist (if there is such a thing) would be the most accurate.
So any response I give to your questions are my understanding of Atheism. Having said that -


> My observation here is that no view of life can be 100% _proven_ valid.


I would agree.


> that the atheist looks about and concludes that it all is what it is with no need &/or no thoughts that it 'got here' via some diety.


I would also agree with that.


> even though i'd anticipate that there is only one truth.


That too.
It may be real interesting, if man is ever able to determine what "the truth" actually is, if the truth is even something we ever could have imagined.


> " _thus all views of life require faith_ "


I'm still stuck on this one.
I'm interpreting it to mean that even an Atheist view would require faith that a god/God doesn't exist.
I don't see where it would require faith that something doesn't exist if that something cant be proven to exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> If there is no God, than people are just the survival engines they evolved to be, and everything we do (free will) is a reflection of that evolution.  So, something as simple as loving your children is not a choice, but an evolutionary characteristic which enables the survival of the species.
> 
> What does that say about folks who do not love their kids?  And, what does it say about folks who try to help those kids who are not loved?





bullethead said:


> You mean like the animals that abandon their young and other animals who will nurse and raise the young of others that were killed or died?
> 
> Maybe the texas couple who adopted 13 kids and had them chained up for years is an example of a god?



Depending on the nature of the God you are talking about, you might tend to find a mixture of good parents and bad parents; the random mutation thing.   That there exist such extremes of goodness and evil seems to me like what would happen if no god was involved at all.  

I've missed out on this thread.  I hope to catch up.  There's some good discussion here.  Good to see you back, JB.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> First, in the interest of full disclosure...
> If I have to give myself a "label" it would be Agnostic. Or maybe Agnostic Atheist (if there is such a thing) would be the most accurate.
> So any response I give to your questions are my understanding of Atheism. Having said that -
> 
> ...



If you're not a theist then by definition you're an atheist. We are all agnostics. Some just lack the honesty to admit it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> I am listening to Sam Harris's lecture on Free Will as I type this, and I'm sure you have already done so.
> 
> I think we can tweak our justice system from its current form to something better, certainly.  If we determine that a criminal acts a certain way because of a brain tumor, then remove it and see if the patterns change.  I think there is a path to rehabilitation in cases such as this.  If we decide that there is no free will, that everything we do is determined by something in our past, we still have to govern.  We can't let every thief walk free just because we understand they had a bad childhood and therefore they cant help being a thief.



That's right.  Even if someone is just "bad", the result of genes and environment (things completely out of their control), it still might be best to lock them away or kill them.  We should still try to rehabilitate them.  Being able to tell if they've been rehabilitated seems tricky, though.  I'm for capital punishment so long as the ratio of wrongly executed to guilty is 1:800,000.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I struggle seeing benefits of parents killing their kids.



Historically, infanticide has been committed in times of scarcity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> If you're not a theist then by definition you're an atheist. We are all agnostics. Some just lack the honesty to admit it.


That's what I hate about "labels".
I'm not prepared to say that 100% there is no god (any of them).
I am prepared to say I don't believe any god(s) exist based on the fact that there is no preponderance (or even anywhere close) of evidence that one does.
So whatever that makes me, that's what I am


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Historically, infanticide has been committed in times of scarcity.



or when God commands his people to "just because he can." Whenever Old Testament God slaughters  or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category  if we question his character. 

BTW google up "craziest Bible stories" and be prepared to have your mind blown when you see the full display of working in mysterious ways!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> *Yo Bullet* -
> 
> You prompt 2 thoughts to emerge as i have carefully read all of your above posts to this point ....
> 
> ...



Your understanding of the Biblical God is incorrect as far as I can tell.  The Bible says that God is sovereign or omnipotent in this way:

_1.
possessing supreme or ultimate power.
synonyms:	supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full; More_

It also says He's omniscient which means He is all knowing.  Nothing happens that God is not in control of or doesn't know about.  If that's true, where is the freewill?  The only way for there to be freewill under those conditions is to allow that God can "turn off" His omniscience or sovereignty occasionally.  In that case you need to use qualifiers like "limited omniscience" or "limited sovereignty".  When you start doing stuff like  that, you're basically writing your own version of the Bible, which as it turns out is what every believer does.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> The non physical part of a person. The Soul.



How do you know you have a soul?  How do you confirm it's existence?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> or when God commands his people to "just because he can." Whenever Old Testament God slaughters  or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category  if we question his character.
> 
> BTW google up "craziest Bible stories" and be prepared to have your mind blown when you see the full display of working in mysterious ways!



I can come up with some very carnal reasons to kill the children of your enemies.  I can't seem to com up with any reasons why a "loving God" would want to kill children.  It really is mysterious.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I can come up with some very carnal reasons to kill the children of your enemies.  I can't seem to com up with any reasons why a "loving God" would want to kill children.  It really is mysterious.




“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." 
(Psalm 137:9)



oldfella1962 said:


> Whenever Old Testament God slaughters  or gives instructions to slaughter (he gets too busy to do it himself I guess) it falls under the "God works in mysterious ways" category  if we question his character.



“Mysterious” is an understatement. 

_


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

ky55 said:


> “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
> (Psalm 137:9)
> 
> “Mysterious” is an understatement.
> ...



What's weirder to me that these "mysteries" are held in such heartfelt regard by believers.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what I hate about "labels".
> I'm not prepared to say that 100% there is no god (any of them).
> I am prepared to say I don't believe any god(s) exist based on the fact that there is no preponderance (or even anywhere close) of evidence that one does.
> So whatever that makes me, that's what I am



That makes you an agnostic and an atheist. 

I get the aversion to labels but words mean things.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 1.  Your understanding of the Biblical God is incorrect as far as I can tell.
> 2.  The Bible says that God is sovereign or omnipotent in this way:
> ..... It also says He's omniscient which means He is all knowing.
> Nothing happens that God is not in control of or doesn't know about.
> ...



1.  Heard.
2.  The real or the perceived or the thought to be  view 
that *'free-will'
probably does not or (theo-)_logically_ can not exist,
in my humble view, ought to be thought provoking for every Bible based believer (i am not saying faith provoking),
as well as for any '100%' atheists ( < reason for my Original Post ... i was endeavoring to learn more on this very matter.).
Anyways :- ), it always has been thought provoking for me.
And i suspect will continue to be.  
The reason i say 'for me it will probably continue to be,' is cause i have 'done the whole internet' on this a couple of times over the last decade, & i remain 'thought provoked.'  However, the fellow posters on this Topic have helped me move _further_ along in my understanding.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> That makes you an agnostic and an atheist.
> 
> I get the aversion to labels but words mean things.



The reluctance to deny the existence of god might show how strong the indoctrination of the idea has been.  No one would have a problem saying they're an A-astrologist or an A-Unicornist.  For some reason god is a particularly touchy subject.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> 1.  Heard.
> 2.  The real or the perceived or the thought to be  view
> that *'free-will'
> probably does not or (theo-)_logically_ can not exist,
> ...



Have you seen Sam Harris' thoughts on determinism?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

drippin' rock said:


> I am listening to Sam Harris's lecture on Free Will as I type this, and I'm sure you have already done so.
> 
> I think we can tweak our justice system from its current form to something better, certainly.  If we determine that a criminal acts a certain way because of a brain tumor, then remove it and see if the patterns change.  I think there is a path to rehabilitation in cases such as this.  If we decide that there is no free will, that everything we do is determined by something in our past, we still have to govern.  We can't let every thief walk free just because we understand they had a bad childhood and therefore they cant help being a thief.



After more thinking about Harris' position I think I've discovered a flaw.  He tries to find the "self" in decision making.  He claims that since thoughts arise from a place that we don't know about, and before we even know that we had them, that they must be predetermined. 

I see that as a huge assumption.  Maybe I'm not getting his argument entirely correct.

Until we fully understand our "wet ware" (the goo inside our skulls where thoughts seem to emerge from) I think it's premature to discount volition.  I'm trying to think of what happens the moment a decision arises.  

If I were riding my bike towards a phone pole and I have to decide to either go around it to the right, left, or run into it,  it's true that I can't fully comprehend where the decision I've made originated. It's true that there's 13 billion years of previous activity and experience that has put me in this place heading towards the phone pole.  Until we can map all the biochemical reactions in my head in such a way that we know exactly why I made one decision or another I think it's premature to say that a spontaneous response in my physical being (including my wet ware) didn't have anything to do with what happened.

This becomes clearer to me when I imagine the thought process that might go "left, right, left, right, LEFT!, RIGHT!" CRASH!!!!!  Who didn't decide to turn?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> 1. It may be real interesting, if man is ever able to determine what "the truth" actually is, if the truth is even something we ever could have imagined*.
> 
> I'm still stuck on this one.
> I'm interpreting it to mean that even an Atheist view would require faith that a god/God doesn't exist.
> I don't see where it would require faith that something doesn't exist if that something cant be proven to exist.



1.  Am right there as well.  
Plus, what 'gets' me, personally anyways, is that i have to accept that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g i *_imagine/think_ or _see_ or _feel_ or _what in the heck ever_ :- ) is brought to me via my senses.  
So don't i need to ask myself, 
"Self, how good are YOUR senses really?"
Moreover, i go thru my silly little everyday life thinking i sorta really know what is kinda going on; 
however, all that stuff that i know is going on i need to understanding is not actual REALity... it is sensory based/filtered/perceived reality.
E.g., is your and my green _actually_ the same green??????
2. Wow.  
Kewl thought.  
Lemme take a whirl at building an addition onto your thought...
My knee jerk/1st pass thought on this would be that an atheist _should_ be able to conclude that that 'view of life'
(IF you will permit me to call atheism a 'view of life' - i am supposing some might be able to state a fine case that it is not ... & they have probably thought it thru much more than i have ... not sure/dunno)
is analyse-able without any consideration of the existence of a deity.   
Seems to me that it needs to be a stand all alone evaluation.  
If one concludes atheism_ is valid_.... no further thought needed at that time.
If one concludes atheism _is invalid_ .... i think that leaves one as agnostic if/until some believed in view of life is subscribe to??????


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Have you seen Sam Harris' thoughts on determinism?


Have not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> 1.  Am right there as well.
> Plus, what 'gets' me, personally anyways, is that i have to accept that e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g i *_imagine/think_ or _see_ or _feel_ or _what in the heck ever_ :- ) is brought to me via my senses.
> So don't i need to ask myself,
> "Self, how good are YOUR senses really?"
> ...



There are different ways to know "what's going on".  We can talk about green as a wavelength.  The description of the wavelength read by an instrument will appear the same for all of us.  Arguing against it would be silly.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2018)

Israel said:


> There is a yes to that.
> There is a no to that.
> 
> As to the yes.
> ...





> Holding to a doctrine of election...does not at all guarantee that one is "of the elect".



That was my point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Yup, my perspective
> (& am certainly willing to learn & modify :- )....
> is that agnosticism is by definition (?) a defined 'perspective' that says more or less ~
> no view of life can be 100% _proven_ valid,
> ...



Yes.
But getting back to your "faith" claim. 
None is needed to be agnostic.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yes.
> But getting back to your "faith" claim.
> None is needed to be agnostic.


Concur that an agnostic subscribes to no 'view of life.'


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 26, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Concur that an agnostic subscribes to no 'view of life.'


Could you define what you mean by "no view of life"?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Concur that an agnostic subscribes to no 'view of life.'



What do you mean by "view of life "?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 29, 2018)

.





WaltL1 said:


> Could you define what you mean by '_no view of life_"?*


Walt - Permit me to 1st comment on Bullet's related Q, "What do you mean by "view of life'?"
'View of life,' for me 
(am not saying what it oughta be for others)
described with a broad sorta brush would be my combined most current to date view on:
1. How come i am here?
2. What do i think i am doing here?
3. Even :- ), what is 'here?' 
4. Etc.
How would y'all broadly (or narrowly  define 'view of life?'
Thus, Walt, to reply, Sir, specifically, to your above Q,
i'd say that by '_no view of life_' 
i am saying *that a person chooses/simply determines to not define much or any of the above.
How come i have commented previously that an agnostic chooses / determines to not subscribe to any particular 'view of life?'  
Simply cause most dictionaries define agnostic as "non-committal" and "undogmatic."  
i'd add that, it has been my experience, that most thoughtful agnostics have developed a rational understanding as to why their view is logically non-committal/undogmatic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> .
> Walt - Permit me to 1st comment on Bullet's related Q, "What do you mean by "view of life'?"
> 'View of life,' for me
> (am not saying what it oughta be for others)
> ...


I think, I guess, kinda, in a broad sense I would have to agree.
I think we (I) have asked ourselves many of those same questions as above but for some we (I) more or less say "I don't know" which is pretty non-committal. Although I guess one could also be committed to "I don't know" until further discovery etc.
On the flip side one could take "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a/one view of life in a generic (no god/God involved) form etc. 
And one could also answer in very non-philosophical ways -
1. How come i am here?
Because my parents reproduced.
2. What do i think i am doing here?
Whatever I decide my purpose is.
3. Even :- ), what is 'here?'
Earth.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2018)

If ya live to be a happy and healthy 100 yrs old it is not a lot of time.
Enjoy your time with family and friends and treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 30, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And one could also answer in very non-philosophical ways -
> 1. How come i am here?
> Because my parents reproduced.
> 2. What do i think i am doing here?
> ...


Yup ... i could see that working well for some folks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2018)

> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> And one could also answer in very non-philosophical ways -
> 1. How come i am here?
> Because my parents reproduced.
> ...





RegularJoe said:


> Yup ... i could see that working well for some folks.


To me it is interesting that life is basically exactly the same for people that it works for and for people that it doesn't work for.
BOTH -
go to work
have family
hunt or fish or whatever hobbies
pay taxes 
etc. etc.
The ONLY difference is whatever satisfies you MENTALLY.
Some folks just NEED for there to be more to it than what there is.
We hear very frequently that the A/A point of view is lacking because "it doesn't answer anything".
Actually it does, its just not acceptable to those who NEED for there to be some greater philosophical answer/reason/purpose.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 30, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> To me it is interesting that life is basically exactly the same for people that it works for and for people that it doesn't work for.
> BOTH -
> go to work
> have family
> ...



That's the interesting part to me. I tend to be introspective and I do allot of self examination and I like to try to recognize the breadcrumbs that have taken me to one intellectual/spiritual place or another. I like to hear about other people's trails of breadcrumbs, too.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jan 31, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I like to hear about other people's trails of breadcrumbs, too.


i do, as well.
i enjoy learning from others' trails of breadcrumbs.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 6, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> If you really want to dig into the subject, try to find an example of a choice you can make that isn't determined by prior causes.



Maybe you mean a choice you 'will' make?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2018)

660griz said:


> Maybe you mean a choice you 'will' make?



"Can" examines the possibility of freewill.  "Will" implies the absence of it.

It's a challenge put forth.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 6, 2018)

JB0704 said:


> I agree with this.  But, that makes me think we have a will, which may be limited by "nature."
> 
> So, if there is a God, then the framework of nature is his.  If there is no God, then evolution hasn't quite perfected the process just yet...........would we trend further away from "nurture" if that's the case?



good way to phrase it! We have a will, but that will still interacts within the framework of society/evolution/laws of physics/etc. And no doubt humans (and many other animals) are a product of nature and nurture and who know what other "x factors" exist. There are countless ways your "free will" decisions can play out, but not an infinite number of ways. The universe can adjust (in real time) quite well to your decisions, and there really are very few absolutely "good" or "bad" decisions in life that cannot be adjusted to or improvised around, with the possible exception of making Caddy Shack II. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 6, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> good way to phrase it! We have a will, but that will still interacts within the framework of society/evolution/laws of physics/etc. And no doubt humans (and many other animals) are a product of nature and nurture and who know what other "x factors" exist. There are countless ways your "free will" decisions can play out, but not an infinite number of ways. The universe can adjust (in real time) quite well to your decisions, and there really are very few absolutely "good" or "bad" decisions in life that cannot be adjusted to or improvised around, with the possible exception of making Caddy Shack II. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 6, 2018)

Although I doubt that the debate has, at any time, swung far enough to one side or the other to have been called a consensus, there have been swings, among scholars and laymen alike, over time that could be called a preference for one side or the other.  Given that, what I think would be interesting would be to make a study of those swings over a given period of time (500yrs., 1000 yrs., 2000 yrs.) with the objective of determining which swings were led by philosophy, physics, theology, and maybe other disciplines.  But that's just an idea for others to consider since, even if I had the facility to do the work, I could not reasonable expect to complete such a study in this lifetime.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 6, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> To me it is interesting that life is basically exactly the same for people that it works for and for people that it doesn't work for.
> BOTH -
> go to work
> have family
> ...



Not true. I had no need for anything. And I can assure you I wasn't looking for anything Mentally. I wasn't indoctrinated or raised in church. I came to my own conclusion through my own life experiences. I think some people get caught up in a vision or what the world tells them that they lose the ability to have an open mind and find out for yourself. I don't think I have A specific purpose and I'm not seeking one. But I do believe in creation and GOD almighty. I cant prove it to you but you cant prove me wrong. In fact I bet most Christians would consider me a heathen. But I bet they haven't had the spiritual experiences I have had.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 6, 2018)

From an Atheist standpoint, if free will is an illusion, is the opposite still predestination?
A person who believes in a higher being can determine that God has predestined. I guess an Atheist free will believer could say as Oldfella in post 162. That even without predestination, there still isn't freewill?
I think that is what he is saying. That there are a host of things going on that would keep someone from having free will even without predestination.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 6, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> From an Atheist standpoint, if free will is an illusion, is the opposite still predestination?
> A person who believes in a higher being can determine that God has predestined. I guess an Atheist free will believer could say as Oldfella in post 162. That even without predestination, there still isn't freewill?
> I think that is what he is saying. That there are a host of things going on that would keep someone from having free will even without predestination.



I disagree. If that were the case Eve would never have eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam Would have never hid and shame wouldn't exist. We all have free will even though GOD knows your heart and what choices you will make. John 18:13-27.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 6, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Not true. I had no need for anything. And I can assure you I wasn't looking for anything Mentally. I wasn't indoctrinated or raised in church. I came to my own conclusion through my own life experiences. I think some people get caught up in a vision or what the world tells them that they lose the ability to have an open mind and find out for yourself. I don't think I have A specific purpose and I'm not seeking one. But I do believe in creation and GOD almighty. I cant prove it to you but you cant prove me wrong.


Howdy Richie,
First -


> but you cant prove me wrong


I have no desire to prove you "wrong". And I couldn't prove your belief in creation or God to be wrong if I wanted to. I can present arguments against it and evidence against it but definitive proof either for or against has not been discovered by either side.
However I am not wrong when I say -


> The ONLY difference is whatever satisfies you MENTALLY.


Mentally you are satisfied there is a God and he is responsible for creation.
If it didn't satisfy you mentally you wouldn't believe it.
I am also not wrong when I say this -


> Some folks just NEED for there to be more to it than what there is


For example, we hear lots of folks testimonies.
"I was in a car wreck. Car rolled 5 times. I'm still alive".
But instead of leaving it at that the next sentence is -
"God saved me".
They NEED an explanation of how they could still be alive.


> I came to my own conclusion through my own life experiences.


You could have picked from lots of gods to be responsible for your experiences. But you picked one specific one. You cant even prove that god exists. You cant prove the other gods don't. You cant prove God was responsible for anything. Even though you stand firm that you weren't indoctrinated, you chose the god (God) that we here in this part of the world have been taught is the "one". Its not a coincidence you chose to believe in the Christian God.
Indoctrination doesn't have to mean you sat in a church 2 days a week and were beat over the head with the Bible.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 6, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I disagree. If that were the case Eve would never have eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam Would have never hid and shame wouldn't exist. We all have free will even though GOD knows your heart and what choices you will make. John 18:13-27.


You would choose according to what God knows. You are not free to choose differently.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 6, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy Richie,
> First -
> 
> I have no desire to prove you "wrong". And I couldn't prove your belief in creation or God to be wrong if I wanted to. I can present arguments against it and evidence against it but definitive proof either for or against has not been discovered by either side.
> ...



Truth Brother. You believe based off your experience and I believe off mine. The proof will come in the end. In my personal observation there has just been too many coincidences to be coincidence. But I have always been an odds guy as well as spiritually. I just don't buy the numbers.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 6, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> You would choose according to what God knows. You are not free to choose differently.


No you have no idea what he knows. I follow my heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 6, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I disagree. If that were the case Eve would never have eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam Would have never hid and shame wouldn't exist. We all have free will even though GOD knows your heart and what choices you will make. John 18:13-27.



I disagree, if free will existed, Eve would never have eaten the forbidden fruit.
The Word was with God before Eve ate the fruit. Meaning God's plan was already established from Adam to Jesus everything happened just as God planned it.

Some people think that from Adam to Jesus was predestined to make God's plan happen the way he wanted it to but after that free will kicked in.

Now suppose God does know my choices. I'm standing at my closet trying to decide to wear my blue shirt or my read shirt. I choose to wear my red shirt. If God knew of my choice before time existed, how could I possibly choose my blue shirt? I couldn't because God has already seen what shirt I would choose.
So the results are the same as predestination if God already knows my choices. My choice was just an illusion.

It would be the same with salvation. God has already "seen" my choice. I can't undo what God has already seen. Even with free will.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No you have no idea what he knows.


In post #121, you said that God knows the heart. Can I not at least have that idea?



red neck richie said:


> I follow my heart.


The heart that God knows?


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2018)

God's will is free; that of man, and surely the unregenerate man is not.

No one argues (that I see) that man does not have a _will_.
It's very clear to us all, and surely mentioned in the scriptures, that there is a will of man. And just as surely the will of God. Which of these is a free will? We err greatly when we presume the will of man is not answerable to another or that it is not firmly bounded by another will that will make itself known. We (who may call ourselves believers) must surely know this, no?

How gracious is our Lord! Who does not know of seeming _hints_? Who does not know when coming to a certain place of particular enlightenment through reproof (will we deny its necessity?) we have sensed in some way a prior bucking against that will of the greater (greatest) other?

Do we think that Paul did not know this when it was told him "It is hard to kick against the pricks (goads)?" Did Paul answer "gee, no, I felt no goading?" He knew very well he was moving in a resistance, a fight against, to the point of fuming. Oh yes, his will to it was full, his will to it was in full gear, but when he was made aware it was the true God he was resisting (and not one of his own imagination), he changed. In all ways he was changed.  

Why would we believe Paul's succinct disposal of the some things mentioned, "touch not" "taste not" "handle not" as useless restrictions that are shown no more than "will worship?" Do we think Paul knew nothing of the will's desire to take a stand upon them to bring worship to itself?


"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you..." This was not said immediately to the disciples, but at a certain time for their hearing. Would it be, is it sufficient to the disciples to have heard spoken only: "I have chosen you?" Perhaps, but the Lord is always the greatest (and only) help.


It would be easy to see, as some accuse of others, the ease in which the will to self exaltation could take advantage "I am chosen, I am (the) chosen"!! before men. But the wisdom of Christ! "You have _not_ chosen me..." comes first! 

"You have_ not_..."

Let a man consider those words in regards to his own ability (is it not rebuked, there?) to choose "the good".

Oh, many's the man who comes from this place, believing he of himself has made the better _choice_...even in regards to the Lord. He does not know he still trusts in his innate goodness over others to "know" the good from something good of himself...when it appears. No, his eyes must always be opened to the greater (and free) will. The will of God. A man cannot choose what he is unable to see. And...if he sees...whose doing is that?

And having come "from that place", I am just beginning to learn this, and of that man, and his utter blindness unless another freely open his eyes.


I am pressed to add this. A brother recently quoted (it seems several times...but perhaps the emphasis, and the still echo is a result of the Spirit's underscore) "That _God's purpose _in election might stand"

You may think I "bang the drum" for election. God forbid. There's no salvation of itself in believing _in election_. 

In embracing election _of itself_ a man can no more dismiss this: "Have I not chosen you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Than embrace this (of himself) "Ye are a chosen generation..." Can _any man decide _what he is chosen to?
A man may find being chosen could be entirely _to a thing _he does not even consider. 

"All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes..." who is wise enough to not "fall for that?"


So, what could be..."God's purpose in election?" 

Is it just to _believe_ in election?
God forbid.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I disagree, if free will existed, Eve would never have eaten the forbidden fruit.
> The Word was with God before Eve ate the fruit. Meaning God's plan was already established from Adam to Jesus everything happened just as God planned it.
> 
> Some people think that from Adam to Jesus was predestined to make God's plan happen the way he wanted it to but after that free will kicked in.
> ...


Knowing what your choice will be and programming you to make that choice is the difference between free will and predestination.

I know a fat chick is going to eat the cake if I set it in front her. She can still choose not to eat it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Knowing what your choice will be and programming you to make that choice is the difference between free will and predestination.
> 
> I know a fat chick is going to eat the cake if I set it in front her. She can still choose not to eat it.


Assuming I understand the Christian view of God being "all knowing" -
Not the same.
A "fat chick" could be allergic to chocolate and therefore wouldn't eat it if thats what you put in front of her. Or carrot cake or she could be on a diet or.....
What you are doing is _betting_ she would eat it based your observation that she is fat.
God doesn't have to bet. He would have already seen whether she ate it or not. 
Could she choose to do something other than what God has already seen her do?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Assuming I understand the Christian view of God being "all knowing" -
> Not the same.
> A "fat chick" could be allergic to chocolate and therefore wouldn't eat it if thats what you put in front of her. Or carrot cake or she could be on a diet or.....
> What you are doing is _betting_ she would eat it based your observation that she is fat.
> ...


Him knowing what she has decided and will do is not the same as making her decide to do it, or deciding for her.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Him knowing what she has decided and will do is not the same as making her decide to do it, or deciding for her.


I understand your point but.....
Can she decide or can she choose to do anything different other than what he already saw?
Yes or No?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I understand your point but.....
> Can she decide or can she choose to do anything different other than what he already saw?
> Yes or No?



She’s going to do what he saw her do. But just because he saw her do it, that doesn’t mean he made her decision for her. He could move on her to decide something different, but she still has to decide herself. Otherwise, we are nothing but robots.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> She’s going to do what he saw her do. But just because he saw her do it, that doesn’t mean he made her decision for her. He could move on her to decide something different, but she still has to decide herself. Otherwise, we are nothing but robots.


In a nutshell that's the problem with the whole free will and all knowing beliefs.
You are getting around this question -


> Can she decide or can she choose to do anything different other than what he already saw?
> Yes or No?


Because the answer is No.
If the answer is no then you don't truly have free will or decisions or choices.
If God "always was" he knew what she would do before she was ever born.
If this is true -


> She’s going to do what he saw her do.


She cant choose or decide to do anything else.
God knowing is the control.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Otherwise, we are nothing but robots.


God is over man and robot. Neither are free.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> In a nutshell that's the problem with the whole free will and all knowing beliefs.
> You are getting around this question -
> 
> Because the answer is No.
> ...



I love when you talk this way...what a help to a man with many plans but who inevitably touches a will that prevails over them.

Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> In a nutshell that's the problem with the whole free will and all knowing beliefs.
> You are getting around this question -
> 
> Because the answer is No.
> ...


I would have to disagree. His knowledge of what someone will decide is not connected to him controlling the decision that the person makes. It just means he knows what they will decide to do. If free will didn’t exist, there would be no need for “who so ever will” and it would be hard pressed to even think that atheism would even exist because he’d just make everyone a believer because it is not his Will that anyone perish.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> God is over man and robot. Neither are free.



I’m free to curse God and walk away if chose to. I chose not to.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would have to disagree. His knowledge of what someone will decide is in not connected to him controlling the decision that the person makes. It just means he knows what they will decide to do. If free will didn’t exist, there would be no need for “who so ever will” and it would be hard pressed to even think that atheism would even exist because he’d just make everyone a believer.




A "who so ever will" must be predicated on believing Him, that He receives "who so ever wills". This is where the man has entered the _experiment_ to weigh his own will...against another. Oh, yes, he has much to learn of what power his own will has...and that in particular...against another.


"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (Which _could mean_ "whether I speak of my own will")


Ahh the blessedness of learning this "Fear not little flock, it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom".

A will prevails to give when all other wills, and where all other wills...must flag.

Will one run from? It doesn't matter. Will one be still to know? Runners run. And stoppers stop...but both and either are under command.

For thus the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel, has said, 

"In repentance and rest you will be saved, In quietness and trust is your strength." But you were not willing, And you said, "No, for we will flee on horses," Therefore you shall flee! "And we will ride on swift horses," Therefore those who pursue you shall be swift. One thousand will flee at the threat of one man; You will flee at the threat of five, Until you are left as a flag on a mountain top And as a signal on a hill. Therefore the LORD longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would have to disagree. His knowledge of what someone will decide is not connected to him controlling the decision that the person makes. It just means he knows what they will decide to do. If free will didn’t exist, there would be no need for “who so ever will” and it would be hard pressed to even think that atheism would even exist because he’d just make everyone a believer because it is not his Will that anyone perish.



I agree with your assessment Spotlight. That's how I see it as well.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m free to curse God and walk away if chose to. I chose not to.


And your choice was not a free either. You chose according to the strongest influence on your mind.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> His knowledge of what someone will decide is not connected to him controlling the decision that the person makes. It just means he knows what they will decide to do.


He does not learn what He knows. He created the person... knowingly. They can not decide otherwise.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> And your choice was not a free either. You chose according to the strongest influence on your mind.



You’re confusing the “influence” in making a decision with the actual making of that decision.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He does not learn what He knows. He created the person... knowingly. They can not decide otherwise.



I don’t claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make any sense. If what you’re saying is true, what’s the point?? You literally just go live the way you want and do what you want because the  decision has already been made for you, right??


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You’re confusing the “influence” in making a decision with the actual making of that decision.


I will consider that, when you show me a decision that is not influenced.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I agree with your assessment Spotlight. That's how I see it as well.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I will consider that, when you show me a decision that is not influenced.



Everything we do good or bad is influenced. But ultimately, we have to decide. That decision is ours.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2018)

To see Christ crucified is to see the meeting of man's will in opposition to God's, manifest in the flesh. The weaker thing must make way.

To see Christ in the resurrection is to see which will prevails.


For indeed He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by God's power. For we also are weak in Him, but we will live with Him by God's power toward you.



It is good to be too weak to curse God and depart. For the staying shall be made manifest, and the staying One, seen.

_I will_ never leave you, nor forsake you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Everything we do good or bad is influenced. But ultimately, we have to decide. That decision is ours.


Yes. The influenced decision is ours.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He does not learn what He knows. He created the person... knowingly. They can not decide otherwise.


That ^ is the crux of my argument.
But admittedly, my argument only works if you believe that He created the person....knowingly.
Not surprisingly, you guys seem to have differing opinions on what "knowingly" means


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I would have to disagree. His knowledge of what someone will decide is not connected to him controlling the decision that the person makes. It just means he knows what they will decide to do. If free will didn’t exist, there would be no need for “who so ever will” and it would be hard pressed to even think that atheism would even exist because he’d just make everyone a believer because it is not his Will that anyone perish.


There are many Christians who believe God created both the believers and non-believers to be just that - believers and non-believers.


> because it is not his Will that anyone perish.


That sounds to me that man's will can defeat God's will.
If that's true then God is not omni-everything


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> There are many Christians who believe God created both the believers and non-believers to be just that - believers and non-believers.
> 
> That sounds to me that man's will can defeat God's will.
> If that's true then God is not omni-everything



Walt, we need to fish Yargo soon. Man's will, will never defeat Gods will but you do have a choice. I believe you don't choices have been made.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 7, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> There are many Christians who believe God created both the believers and non-believers to be just that - believers and non-believers.
> 
> That sounds to me that man's will can defeat God's will.
> If that's true then God is not omni-everything



They won’t be able to provide any scripture to indicate that there are those created specifically to be a non-believer. I would refer them to  2 Peter 3 verse 9, Acts 2 verse 21 and 1st Timothy 2 verse 4 for starters.

And there are many people that are out of the Will of God. Again, I would start with those scriptures.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> They won’t be able to provide any scripture to indicate that there are those created specifically to be a non-believer. I would refer them to  2 Peter 3 verse 9, Acts 2 verse 21 and 1st Timothy 2 verse 4 for starters.
> 
> And there are many people that are out of the Will of God. Again, I would start with those scriptures.



Isaiah 64:8	
But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.

Romans 9:17-18
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

Romans 11:5-6
In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:7-8
What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened,
8as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."

John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Acts 1:16
"Brothers," he said, "the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas, who guided those who arrested Jesus. This was predicted long ago by the Holy Spirit, speaking through King David.

Do you think God left his master plan written before time up to the free will of man? It was by chance that that the Jews crucified Jesus. It was by chance a remnant was chosen from Israel and the rest hardened to send the gospel to the gentiles.
It's up to our free will actions when Jesus will return.

Maybe all of that Bible stuff was predestined, but from Jesus ascension to his return is not planned. So perhaps predestination in the past, followed by a period of free will, and finally a return to a period of predestination when Jesus returns.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 7, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Knowing what your choice will be and programming you to make that choice is the difference between free will and predestination.
> 
> I know a fat chick is going to eat the cake if I set it in front her. She can still choose not to eat it.



God knows without a doubt if the fat chick will eat the cake. I can only presume that she "may" eat the cake.

Let's return to God knowing my choice on me choosing salvation. If he knew from the begging of time what my free will choice was, how can I not go with that choice?
Even if it's my choice made by my own free will, God still knew what it was. I can't choose anything but what he knew I would choose.

Let's suppose God didn't make the Jews and Romans soldiers kill his Son. Just by him knowing they would, they had to fulfill what God already knew would happen. Free will or predestination mattered not. God's plan still happened.

The Word was with God from the beginning. He was already a part of God's plan. It had to happen exactly the way God saw it, predestined or free will.
Whether he made the Jews kill Jesus or he knew they would kill Jesus makes little difference. Either way it was God's plan for redemption. He didn't go with plan B because man changed his plan A. He didn't come up with the idea of killing his Son because of sin later. God doesn't alter his plan  as man makes free will choices. God gave us his only Son from before time existed.

No one can change what God has already seen, planned, or just knew about. So in this sense, free will is just an illusion. At the least it's not very useful. Being you can't choose anything other than what God has seen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2018)

Israel said:


> I love when you talk this way...what a help to a man with many plans but who inevitably touches a will that prevails over them.
> 
> Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.





> I love when you talk this way...


Don't get too giddy..... I'm just stepping into ya'lls shoes for a moment 

Although it is said that the ability/effort to step into another's shoes is the key to understanding beliefs/points other than our own.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> They won’t be able to provide any scripture to indicate that there are those created specifically to be a non-believer.


"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> They won’t be able to provide any scripture to indicate that there are those created specifically to be a non-believer. I would refer them to  2 Peter 3 verse 9, Acts 2 verse 21 and 1st Timothy 2 verse 4 for starters.
> 
> And there are many people that are out of the Will of God. Again, I would start with those scriptures.


I'm not getting into the whole "what scripture says" thing.
As you can see Art provided scripture supporting one view.
And I have no doubt that you can provide scripture supporting a different view.
For me to get involved in that would be like standing in between these two guys  -


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Walt, we need to fish Yargo soon. Man's will, will never defeat Gods will but you do have a choice. I believe you don't choices have been made.





> Walt, we need to fish Yargo soon.


Absolutely!
But you have to promise not to try to convert me 
Although I wont mind at all if you offer up a few prayers that we catch a big'un.....


----------



## Israel (Mar 8, 2018)

When one is sure there are no more surprises allowed to "a fat chick"...be ready...for the Lord comes at an hour when you do not expect Him.

Learning to "_be ready_" for what one is told he cannot expect...well...one may see where he better have a hope someone else has dressed him.


----------



## Israel (Mar 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Don't get too giddy..... I'm just stepping into ya'lls shoes for a moment
> 
> Although it is said that the ability/effort to step into another's shoes is the key to understanding beliefs/points other than our own.



I wouldn't hope for you to say anything other than that. It's so easy for me to "rejoice" in the wrong, or lesser things.

You are a help to me...plainly...because you are _not trying to be such._

It's a thing plainly, about which I could learn much.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Everything we do good or bad is influenced. But ultimately, we have to decide. That decision is ours.



The kite said to himself, " look at me, I have no string!"  "I can fly wherever I wish!"...

"If it just wasn't for this wind and pesky gravity!!!!!"


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not getting into the whole "what scripture says" thing.
> As you can see Art provided scripture supporting one view.
> And I have no doubt that you can provide scripture supporting a different view.
> For me to get involved in that would be like standing in between these two guys  -


Lol true but I’m not getting into the arguing part. People are going to believe what they believe regardless and at the end of the day, some will still feel that they’re programmed to believe that without choice


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

welderguy said:


> The kite said to himself, " look at me, I have no string!"  "I can fly wherever I wish!"...
> 
> "If it just wasn't for this wind and pesky gravity!!!!!"



But there’s one huge thing to consider.......unlike some, I will “choose” to not be a kite, but it’s obvious that there are those that feel they’re born to fly......


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> But there’s one huge thing to consider.......unlike some, I will “choose” to not be a kite, but it’s obvious that there are those that feel they’re born to fly......



Shall the thing formed say to the thing that formed it, "why hast thou made me thus?" ?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 8, 2018)

David made God mad so God killed Davids's infant son. So much for the free will of the son.

The important thing to notice about mercy;

 (1) It’s always God’s.
 (2) It’s given by God to those who disbelieve.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> But there’s one huge thing to consider.......unlike some, I will “choose” to not be a kite, but it’s obvious that there are those that feel they’re born to fly......



Many think they are the ones that initially "chose" to come to Jesus.
...but..

John 6:44 
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

We are not free from His drawing influence.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Shall the thing formed say to the thing that formed it, "why hast thou made me thus?" ?



People question God all of the time. The ones that I find laughable are those that blame him in one sentence and declare he doesn’t exist in the next.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Many think they are the ones that initially "chose" to come to Jesus.
> ...but..
> 
> John 6:44
> ...



Being drawn and listening are not the sane. I believe that Redneck Richie asked one of the atheist / agnostics here something along the lines of do they ever think about or miss church. Their response was something along the lines of feeling that drawing sometimes. Maybe he can remember what that was about. I may be way off.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> People question God all of the time. The ones that I find laughable are those that blame him in one sentence and declare he doesn’t exist in the next.


Just a comment -
Since half of your comment is "declaring he doesn't exist in the next" I'm assuming you are talking about non believers.
Non believers don't blame God for anything because obviously they don't believe he exists.
But we do take issue with the stories made up by men about God.
For example -
"God is all loving", "he doesn't want anyone to perish" etc.
Yet as the story goes, he drowned children who were too young to even understand what a god was, women, men....
That's not all loving, that's near genocide.
We don't blame "God" for near genocide, we blame the dudes who made that up about "God" because they obviously contradict each other.
When a Christian claims God exists, we sometimes just play along for the sake of conversation/debate.
Otherwise we would never get past "yes he does", "no he doesn't".


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Being drawn and listening are not the sane.



If you are being drawn by God, you will listen, and you will act.

Philippians2:13 
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

remember Jonah?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment -
> Since half of your comment is "declaring he doesn't exist in the next" I'm assuming you are talking about non believers.
> Non believers don't blame God for anything because obviously they don't believe he exists.
> But we do take issue with the stories made up by men about God.
> ...


That’s a good point Walt, but just generally speaking, those that somewhat acknowledge there’s a God when good things happen “thank God I got a raise” “ thank God I got out of that mess” and then on a bad day state “why did God let that happen to me” or “if God was real I wouldn’t be in this shape”

They never consider their own actions that put them in their shape. But back to your point, yea I should have been more clear.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

welderguy said:


> If you are being drawn by God, you will listen, and you will act.
> 
> Philippians2:13
> 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
> ...



From your perspective and understanding, all of the churches may as well shut the door and spend their time doing other stuff. The decision has already been made for everyone and fortunately, since that is not our decision, there are no consequences. 


I would encourage you to really focus on studying the difference in being drawn to something and the obedience to do it and the ability to walk away.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> From your perspective and understanding, all of the churches may as well shut the door and spend their time doing other stuff. The decision has already been made for everyone and fortunately, since that is not our decision, there are no consequences.
> 
> 
> I would encourage you to really focus on studying the difference in being drawn to something and the obedience to do it and the ability to walk away.



Are you saying it's the church's job to save people?(eternally)


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 8, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Are you saying it's the church's job to save people?(eternally)



I’m only saying that there’s no incentive, if the choice has already been made.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m only saying that there’s no incentive, if the choice has already been made.



No incentive to worship the Saviour with other believers?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 8, 2018)

Israel said:


> Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.



But, no one knows what that is. Why he felt the need to create anything? Why aren't butterflies the chosen ones? 
Why create some animals with homosexual tendencies? 
Why create a mosquito or tick or flu or cancer or rabies or abortion, etc?


----------



## Israel (Mar 8, 2018)

660griz said:


> But, no one knows what that is. Why he felt the need to create anything? Why aren't butterflies the chosen ones?
> Why create some animals with homosexual tendencies?
> Why create a mosquito or tick or flu or cancer or rabies or abortion, etc?



Why would we imagine he does anything from need?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m only saying that there’s no incentive, if the choice has already been made.



Why did Saul have an incentive to become Paul? He wasn't seeking God. 
Why did Pharoah not seek God? Wasn't he used by God for a certain purpose? Was Saul/Paul not chosen for a special purpose?
Why was a remnant chosen from Israel(not based on works) and the rest of Israel was hardened? What was the remnants incentive vs the ones who were blinded so as not to see? Not that they stumbled hard  enough for their eyes to be opened, by God, at a future time.
Were they not blinded for God's purpose and plan?


----------



## Israel (Mar 8, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why did Saul have an incentive to become Paul? He wasn't seeking God.
> Why did Pharoah not seek God? Wasn't he used by God for a certain purpose? Was Saul/Paul not chosen for a special purpose?
> Why was a remnant chosen from Israel(not based on works) and the rest of Israel was hardened? What was the remnants incentive vs the ones who were blinded so as not to see? Not that they stumbled hard  enough for their eyes to be opened, by God, at a future time.
> Were they not blinded for God's purpose and plan?



Those are good questions.

Incentive? I think Paul may have said it perfectly.

"That I may know Him" 

Who compares? Does not all comparison take its rightful place there? When the incomparable One makes himself known, what happens to all those other things (even those  as mentioned by Paul that once served his use in comparison)? What must fall away...?

The whittler begins his work as we behold Him. And everything that seems as loss in the discard only serves to clearer vision, and even greater desire.

A dear friend chosen as one set to the provoking of envy was used to provoke me to say this as a child in the Lord..."I want what you have!"

In simplicity he said "To have what I have you will have to lose what I have lost", and this said without an ounce of regret.

He was shameless in his joy. And testimony.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The decision has already been made for everyone and fortunately, since that is not our decision, there are no consequences.


The consequences are determined by God as well. It appears as if you want to be free from God in all matters.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2018)

Israel said:


> Those are good questions.
> 
> Incentive? I think Paul may have said it perfectly.
> 
> ...



_Stephen paused and, though his companion did not speak, felt that his words had called up around them a thought-enchanted silence.

—What I have said, he began again, refers to beauty in the wider sense of the word, in the sense which the word has in the literary tradition. In the marketplace it has another sense. When we speak of beauty in the second sense of the term our judgement is influenced in the first place by the art itself and by the form of that art. The image, it is clear, must be set between the mind or senses of the artist himself and the mind or senses of others. If you bear this in memory you will see that art necessarily divides itself into three forms progressing from one to the next. These forms are: the lyrical form, the form wherein the artist presents his image in immediate relation to himself; the epical form, the form wherein he presents his image in mediate relation to himself and to others; the dramatic form, the form wherein he presents his image in immediate relation to others.

—That you told me a few nights ago, said Lynch, and we began the famous discussion.

—I have a book at home, said Stephen, in which I have written down questions which are more amusing than yours were. In finding the answers to them I found the theory of esthetic which I am trying to explain. Here are some questions I set myself: IS A CHAIR FINELY MADE TRAGIC OR COMIC? IS THE PORTRAIT OF MONA LISA GOOD IF I DESIRE TO SEE IT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

—Why not, indeed? said Lynch, laughing.

—IF A MAN HACKING IN FURY AT A BLOCK OF WOOD, Stephen continued, MAKE THERE AN IMAGE OF A COW, IS THAT IMAGE A WORK OF ART? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

—That's a lovely one, said Lynch, laughing again. That has the true scholastic stink._

James Joyce, _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 8, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m only saying that there’s no incentive, if the choice has already been made.



Are not all incentives rooted in idolatry, save one?


----------



## Israel (Mar 9, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> _Stephen paused and, though his companion did not speak, felt that his words had called up around them a thought-enchanted silence.
> 
> —What I have said, he began again, refers to beauty in the wider sense of the word, in the sense which the word has in the literary tradition. In the marketplace it has another sense. When we speak of beauty in the second sense of the term our judgement is influenced in the first place by the art itself and by the form of that art. The image, it is clear, must be set between the mind or senses of the artist himself and the mind or senses of others. If you bear this in memory you will see that art necessarily divides itself into three forms progressing from one to the next. These forms are: the lyrical form, the form wherein the artist presents his image in immediate relation to himself; the epical form, the form wherein he presents his image in mediate relation to himself and to others; the dramatic form, the form wherein he presents his image in immediate relation to others.
> 
> ...



It looks like you've highlighted a few questions. Are they "to me"...or just meant as signal questions?


----------



## Israel (Mar 9, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Are not all incentives rooted in idolatry, save one?




Yes.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 9, 2018)

Israel said:


> Why would we imagine he does anything from need?



Why would we imagine he?


----------



## Israel (Mar 9, 2018)

660griz said:


> Why would we imagine he?



I'm good with that.

As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.


O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth


----------



## bullethead (Mar 9, 2018)

Israel said:


> I'm good with that.
> 
> As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
> 
> ...



Apparently not, JUST, good with that.

Its almost like a shock gobble.


----------



## Israel (Mar 10, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Apparently not, JUST, good with that.
> 
> Its almost like a shock gobble.



ahhh! I do that sometimes when I see them out and about...these are a few girls my wife was driving up on on the property.

Edible artwork...to also defer to Ambush's post.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2018)

Israel said:


> ahhh! I do that sometimes when I see them out and about...


And in most posts in here.


----------



## Israel (Mar 10, 2018)

LOL...I know you're glad God made turkeys and 3 1/2 magnums.

Gobble gobble gobble


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2018)

Israel said:


> LOL...I know you're glad God made turkeys and 3 1/2 magnums.
> 
> Gobble gobble gobble



I am glad turkeys exist and that I do not need or use 3 1/2" magnums to kill them.

What you claim to know, as always, is suspect.


----------



## Israel (Mar 10, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am glad turkeys exist and that I do not need or use 3 1/2" magnums to kill them.
> 
> What you claim to know, as always, is suspect.



well, that's good. I guess I am rightly reproved. 

(Although I don't hunt or even own a shotgun, I'm still glad for 3 1/2 magnums, maybe the way I'm glad for Lamborghini's and Porsche's, besides, ya just never know when someone might give you one.)


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 10, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am glad turkeys exist and that I do not need or use 3 1/2" magnums to kill them.
> 
> What you claim to know, as always, is suspect.



And from the photo I think he is a school bus driver.


----------



## Israel (Mar 11, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> And from the photo I think he is a school bus driver.



Hey Richie, that's the property my kids, grandkids, and great grandkids live on, my stepdaughter drives the bus.  But here's a photo of more edible art from the property we live on (my wife and I)


That there is a Pied Beauty, as Gerard Manley Hopkins might say.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> And from the photo I think he is a school bus driver.



Are you a professional bass fisherman? How would he have gotten a pic of the back of the turkeys is he was driving that bus?


----------



## welderguy (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you a professional bass fisherman? How would he have gotten a pic of the back of the turkeys is he was driving that bus?



Is your head shaped like a bullet?
No one said anything about the bus being driven at the time the picture was taken.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you a professional bass fisherman? How would he have gotten a pic of the back of the turkeys is he was driving that bus?



No I only play one on the weekends. He said his wife rolled up on the birds. So she probably took the picture as well. Otherwise he would of said he rolled up on the birds.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you a professional bass fisherman? How would he have gotten a pic of the back of the turkeys is he was driving that bus?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 11, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Is your head shaped like a bullet?
> No one said anything about the bus being driven at the time the picture was taken.





> Is your head shaped like a bullet?


Sorry Bullet I couldn't help it


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Is your head shaped like a bullet?
> No one said anything about the bus being driven at the time the picture was taken.



Correct. 
And because there is a bus in the picture richie guessed Isreal was a bus driver???


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> No I only play one on the weekends. He said his wife rolled up on the birds. So she probably took the picture as well. Otherwise he would of said he rolled up on the birds.



Since his wife rolled up on the birds and probably took the pic....and she happened to catch a piece of bus in the pic....Im still wondering why you may think Israel might be a bus driver.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry Bullet I couldn't help it



No offense. Luckily it has to do with what I do with bullets. Otherwise I'd be broke buying custom hats.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Since his wife rolled up on the birds and probably took the pic....and she happened to catch a piece of bus in the pic....Im still wondering why you may think Israel might be a bus driver.



I didn't. I was being sarcastic hence the. I guess you didn't see the humor. I could have been turned into a camper for all I knew until he told me his stepdaughter was a bus driver. The funny thing is my wife is a bus driver.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> I didn't. I was being sarcastic hence the. I guess you didn't see the humor. I could have been turned into a camper for all I knew until he told me his stepdaughter was a bus driver. The funny thing is my wife is a bus driver.



Ok Richie. My apologies


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> No offense. Luckily it has to do with what I do with bullets. Otherwise I'd be broke buying custom hats.


Yeah Ive seen some of your posts on loading/reloading.
Ive got a couple of Swedish Mausers and my deer hunting rifle (Ruger M77) in 6.5x55 that I want to start reloading for. My Dad has some old Lee reloading stuff for it that I'm going to break out and give it a try.
If you hear a large BOOM that means it didn't go well


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah Ive seen some of your posts on loading/reloading.
> Ive got a couple of Swedish Mausers and my deer hunting rifle (Ruger M77) in 6.5x55 that I want to start reloading for. My Dad has some old Lee reloading stuff for it that I'm going to break out and give it a try.
> If you hear a large BOOM that means it didn't go well



I just worked up some loads for a buddy who has  Win 70 in 6.5x55 Swede. 120gr Barnes TTSX and 129gr Hornady SPs.
Let me know if you need any help.
It's a fine cartridge.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I just worked up some loads for a buddy who has  Win 70 in 6.5x55 Swede. 120gr Barnes TTSX and 129gr Hornady SPs.
> Let me know if you need any help.
> It's a fine cartridge.


The Barnes TTSX is exactly what I was considering. Have read lots of good things about it.
And I love the 6.5 Swede. I'm pretty picky about the shots I take which probably plays the biggest part but the Swede has never let me down and the vast majority of the deer don't take but a step or two and down they go. Very low recoil etc. Ive been shooting it for years. When I said I shoot the 6.5 Swede people used to look at me like I was odd but it seems to be really catching on  here in the USA the past few years.
And I appreciate the offer to help. I'll probably be shooting you some questions!

Now back to turkeys and school buses......


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 13, 2018)

Israel said:


> Those are good questions.
> 
> 
> 
> The whittler begins his work as we behold Him. And everything that seems as loss in the discard only serves to clearer vision, and even greater desire.



Kind of sucks if you were chosen by the whittler to be one of those discarded chips laying there on the ground, though.


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Kind of sucks if you were chosen by the whittler to be one of those discarded chips laying there on the ground, though.


 I don't think I at all meant it that way, but if you care to elaborate with what you think. I'm listening.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Mar 14, 2018)

I assume that you were referring to the whittler as God practicing his grand design. My chips reference is to all the aforementioned people who had their hearts hardened, were drowned in floods, killed by plagues, consumed by fire, slain by the Israelites, etc. during the implementation of this grand design.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 15, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I assume that you were referring to the whittler as God practicing his grand design. My chips reference is to all the aforementioned people who had their hearts hardened, were drowned in floods, killed by plagues, consumed by fire, slain by the Israelites, etc. during the implementation of this grand design.


It just doesn't make sense to me that a loving, Omni-everything "god" would choose this route to go.
Consumed by fire, plagues, floods, wars.........
Those ideas/fears/emotions are straight out of man's head.
The whole story is quite suspect to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me that a loving, Omni-everything "god" would choose this route to go.
> Consumed by fire, plagues, floods, wars.........
> Those ideas/fears/emotions are straight out of man's head.
> The whole story is quite suspect to me.



I also used to argue "I wouldn't do it that way if I were God", and I wouldn't.  I could make the Bible a better, more moral book than it is in 5 min but that's still not a good argument against it's veracity.  Even if it's true I would argue that it's not worth following and I can start a list of reasons why.  

God may be just like the Bible says.  He may be just like Westboro Baptist thinks He is.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I also used to argue "I wouldn't do it that way if I were God", and I wouldn't.  I could make the Bible a better, more moral book than it is in 5 min but that's still not a good argument against it's veracity.  Even if it's true I would argue that it's not worth following and I can start a list of reasons why.
> 
> God may be just like the Bible says.  He may be just like Westboro Baptist thinks He is.



When I was in the army we had a saying about "head honchos" when they would display (what we thought was) irrational behavior: "it's his army, we just live in it."
It's kind of this way with god - he doesn't have to make sense, he has more power. "Might makes right" and all that. Thus when he causes (or allows to happen) insanely violent things there is a reason for it - to teach us humans a lesson or punish god's chosen peoples' enemies or whatever. He's not accountable to anyone since it's his universe - it's all about power, control, fear & obedience.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> When I was in the army we had a saying about "head honchos" when they would display (what we thought was) irrational behavior: "it's his army, we just live in it."
> It's kind of this way with god - he doesn't have to make sense, he has more power. "Might makes right" and all that. Thus when he causes (or allows to happen) insanely violent things there is a reason for it - to teach us humans a lesson or punish god's chosen peoples' enemies or whatever. He's not accountable to anyone since it's his universe - it's all about power, control, fear & obedience.



Do you think there was a point in the Army where you might have said "That's enough!  I don't care who you are.  I'm not listening to you anymore because you're ridiculous!"?  If aliens came and did the same things God did would would you worship them if they told you to?

Just questions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I also used to argue "I wouldn't do it that way if I were God", and I wouldn't.  I could make the Bible a better, more moral book than it is in 5 min but that's still not a good argument against it's veracity.  Even if it's true I would argue that it's not worth following and I can start a list of reasons why.
> 
> God may be just like the Bible says.  He may be just like Westboro Baptist thinks He is.


My argument is a bit different than -


> "I wouldn't do it that way if I were God"


I'm saying plagues, floods, consumed by fire etc are a pretty simplistic, "low level", not a whole thought involved type game plan, for one who is supposed to be Omni-everything.
Never mind the morality of it or how I would do it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> My argument is a bit different than -
> 
> I'm saying plagues, floods, consumed by fire etc are a pretty simplistic, "low level", not a whole thought involved type game plan, for one who is supposed to be Omni-everything.
> Never mind the morality of it or how I would do it.



What about using a giant magnifying glass?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> My argument is a bit different than -
> 
> I'm saying plagues, floods, consumed by fire etc are a pretty simplistic, "low level", not a whole thought involved type game plan, for one who is supposed to be Omni-everything.
> Never mind the morality of it or how I would do it.



I understand.  It looks poorly planned but that doesn't mean there wasn't a planner.  

I'm still amazed when I think of the mental process that one must have to go through to maintain trust in the goodness of God's plan.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Mar 20, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> I assume that you were referring to the whittler as God practicing his grand design. My chips reference is to all the aforementioned people who had their hearts hardened, were drowned in floods, killed by plagues, consumed by fire, slain by the Israelites, etc. during the implementation of this grand design.



eggs and omelets, am I right?


----------

