Send a Message
to Consistently Unique

Comments

149

Joined

Sep 25, 2011

Consistently Unique Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

US Politics

Barack Obama, our next President

Lol  (Nov 2, 2012 | post #791094)

US Politics

Barack Obama, our next President

ikr!! like the one they have parked out front of 1600 penn ave. right now.  (Nov 2, 2012 | post #791063)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Firstly, please do not ever insult me with claims that any part of my discussion is a diversion. In my quest for truth and understanding, I merely compare the spiritual realm to the physical realm in an attempt to show you how I see things since nonbelievers demand physical proof for everything. To address your unicorn theory: Believe it or not, I completely understand your argument. But let me explain to you a difference between your unicorn and my God. The unicorn is something physical. God is an spiritual energy of sorts which can become 'physical' if he so chooses. Along with the unicorn comes defiance of logic in that it flies. But what accompanies God is the assertion of good. Right and wrong. You know that stealing is wrong, but why is it wrong? If you see something you want, take it, right? Wrong. Even if we disregard laws, there is still something naturally instilled in everyone which reminds you that an action isn't right. Some call this a conscience. This is where God comes in to play. There is a part of good in even the most evil person. This is because we are of God. But the cool thing about God is you are allowed the free will to choose to ignore that conscience if you so please. But as with any decision, there will be consequences. If we choose to heed the conscience, however, we are capable of shedding a genuine tear for those who died on 911 without having to have personally known a single one of them. This interconnection between us is a subtle reminder that we are part of something greater than us. And this is why I believe in God. Nonbelievers deny this as evidence. They say God defies logic. I say: Exactly. If you take a quick journey over to NASA.gov I can show you images of logic being defied. Event horizons so powerful that visible light cannot escape. Singularities which consume from opposing directions simultaneously. These are the things which show me there is a God. Not because their origins are unknown, but because they are simply even possible.  (Jun 9, 2012 | post #3374)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

It was more of a question to see what your take on love vs punishment was than an equation to hell. And is that why he sends people to Hell? And yeah you gotta watch those tots & gators.  (Jun 9, 2012 | post #3372)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

I accept full responsibility for my actions even under the worst circumstances. So too should my child. I think your understanding of torture is being inadequitely applied to the idea of a Hell. To my understanding, the 'torture' won't be physical, but instead a state of being. More precisely, the state of being absent of a God. Take for instance some mind-states (i.e. depression). They may seem minuscule and incomprehensible to those who do not suffer from them. Simultaneously, the sufferer may feel an overwhelming torture is upon them. I believe Hell will be similar to this. It's not so much that the damned are actively tortured per say, it's moreso that they are left in a secluded area to do as they please (sounds frighteningly [or 'eerily' for my long time followers] similar to what occured in the government's project experiments). And in this seclusion, a broken moral compass will begin to expand until all who are included in it feel as though by doing wrong they are actually doing right. So the 'torture' is ultimately brought upon them by themselves. Does this make sense? Now to speak on the idea of 'zero evidence'. What do we truly have evidence of? Not very much. Believers are criticized for blindly following the word of the Bible. But nonbelievers forget that things like the big bang and man's evolution from other species are no more than theories. Many will blindly accept the word of scientist's carbon dating (which is no more than relative guesstimate), while being unable to even comprehend the simplest chemistry equations used to derive their conclusions. But trust is given to them because they possess a piece of paper stating that they've correctly learned the teachings of someone who at one point was only guessing themselves. Ironically, most priests, popes, and preachers also complete a certain training process and receive a piece of paper too. This is not to demean science. I enjoy the learning process and am always willing to listen to new explanations of how things may have come to pass. But if we are completely honest, unless we have done all of the research 1st hand for ourselves, we are merely basing our scientific knowledge on heresay. The scientist therefore equates to the nonbeliever's priest. Furthermore, scientific explanation of man's existence is still no more (or no less) provable than God's creation of man. Unfortunately some will argue this before stopping to consider what I've truly said.  (Jun 8, 2012 | post #3295)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Hypothetically: You have a child. You love this child and couldn't be more proud. Your child commits a felony for which the punishment is life in prison. Do you argue the child shouldn't get life in prison, on the basis that you love it?  (Jun 8, 2012 | post #3288)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

This is a good question which genuinely caused me to wonder. But in my attempt to support your stance, I ran into an obstacle. Freedom of will lies within the availability of a choice. But cost lies in the consequence of that choice. In other words, I am free to stick my hand in a lit furnace every day if I so choose. There is nothing keeping me from or forcing me to do that. (This is the free will) And this still remains true even if there are two opposing groups observing my actions, one of which entices me to stick my hand in the furnace, the other advising me not to. I am still free to choose to do it or not. However, there are consequences for both choices. I stick my hand in, I get burned. I don't stick my hand in, I don't get burned. Both are equally consequential. But because only one of the two choices alters the natural state of one's flesh not burning, only one choice is considered to have a 'cost'. Does this make sense?  (Jun 3, 2012 | post #2972)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Why insult?  (Jun 3, 2012 | post #2970)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Though religion does call for having faith despite opposition, even religious faith remains to be a 'trust or confidence in someone or something' at its core, does it not? I chose this definition because this was the definition I intended to choose when I spoke. No amount of ambiguity can stray the use of the word faith in my post into inaccuracy. As for your final paragraph, I agree that the need for proof arises when religion is offered to those who choose to strictly follow logic (which is understandably the logical choice). But I ask: Should man's logic be the basis of everything? I can assure you that mistakes are being made this very instant which seem 'logical' in every aspect. They will only seem foolish in the future. So this is where we find ourselves right back at the theme of my post, and again I say: No proof is required because it's about a choice. Choosing to believe. I think believers should invite nonbelievers to believe, but not try to force their views. I also think anyone who claims there to be no God is guilty of the very thing they criticize believers for doing (ie making unprovable claims). (Tangent) I for one am a believer (I'm sure this comes as no surprise). And although my understanding of the word tells me one's salvation cannot be taken from them, I also believe I'm going to Hell. But this is merely because of the daily choices I make. I'm just man enough to accept my fate whatever it may be. But what so many seem to not understand is that Hell is more of a state of being rather than a physical place. It is the absence of God, rather than a jailcell per say. And as more nonbelievers arise, I see how this revelation could possibly come to be. I adore pursuit of knowledge and love to learn, but I do notice that as science progresses, so too does man's acceptance of unnatural things. This is noticible in something as simple as the processed, synthesized, unhealthy foods we ingest on daily basis. And it spans all the way to the mass acceptance of homosexuality. But I think what turns away would-be believers is how believers tend to point fingers at others for blatant sins whilst forgetting their own. EVERY human has some urge or desire over which they feel they have no control. This is the true form of a sin. And I think more nonbelievers would be willing to discuss religion (and possibly more readily become a believer), if the style of religious introduction was altered to not come across as though the believer determines the nonbeliever's fate. Ok I'm done preaching.  (Jun 1, 2012 | post #2804)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Trepidation doesn't guarantee the death of faith. NASA fears the possibility of a shuttle's explotion on every launch. This doesn't mean they don't have faith in their engineers and that the trip will be safe. And if we're still known for taking foolish risks (many of which pay off to our benefit), then I ask what is so preposterous about believing in something you cannot see? This isn't an attempt to convert anyone, but merely an explanation of people's choices. This bridge concept was a tangent from the basis of my post, but I entertained the idea in an effort to keep things simple using scenarios provided by others. Little did I know I'd be dealing with some who are so intensely argumentative that they would actually tell me it is possible to physically place an idea in my hand. Someone here asked me to define faith - Trust or confidence in someone or something. Now given this definition, I'll copy/paste my post: "Yet again the point of my message flies right by. The entire purpose of the religion is faith. (I believe I stated this in the post) Therefore proof either way isn't required. It boils down to a decision to believe. This is why I think so many believers waste time trying to prove, while too many nonbelievers waste time trying to disprove. Either you choose to believe or not. It's up to you, but frankly I don't care who believes or doesn't. I just try to explain the misinterpretation of the word to both believers and nonbelievers alike. It's not about proof. It's not about proof. It's not about proof. Oh, and just in case I wasn't clear.. It's not about proof. It's about a choice to believe without being completely certain. This is also known as something we like to call Faith. How much faith is needed to believe in a space shuttle if Im standing within reaching distance of one on NASA's launch pad? None. But faith is required to believe that very shuttle will get the astronauts to the moon and back safely without exploding. Faith applies to the intagible, and typically accompanies a prediction of some sort. Atheist seem irritated by these words. Believers tend to seem enlightened by them." Even using the most basic definition of faith, every word I stated about faith was true. And judging by the insults I received in replies, so too was the part about some atheists unfortunately. It is impossible to have faith in something already proven or known. This contradicts the very definition of faith. You can trust the idea that something which has been proven is true, but faith as I understand it can only directly apply to something uncertain. If it is certain, then it is now known, which means proof has already occured therefore faith can't apply. Faith can only apply to what is to come or something expected. This is what I hoped my space shuttle example would explain. Apparently, in my attempt to simplify, frustration arose. But if everyone (believers and nonbelievers) would be honest with themselves, nothing I said was inaccurate. Some people just don't like to hear it for some reason.  (May 30, 2012 | post #2604)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

I'd like to believe I have a pretty good idea of how the brain works, but if you have greater knowledge of the matter I'd appreciate your teaching. If an idea truly is tangible, as you say, perhaps you would care to place one in my hand so I can touch it. No matter which way you view it, thoughts and ideas are not tangible. They are the information derived by translation of the electromagnetic occurance in a system of synapses.  (May 29, 2012 | post #2560)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

And the first person to walk across this first bridge had never walked across one before. But they had faith it would support their weight. Similarly, every person/thing to cross a bridge since then has faith the bridge will support their weight every time they cross. Otherwise they wouldn't cross it.  (May 29, 2012 | post #2559)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Incorrect. Religion is about faith. Faith isn't necessarily about religion. And faith is in almost everything we do.  (May 29, 2012 | post #2557)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Question: Was there ever a first bridge, or did they always exist?  (May 29, 2012 | post #2547)

Atheism

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

So ideas are tangible? Interesting. I see now with whom I speak.  (May 29, 2012 | post #2544)

Q & A with Consistently Unique

Headline:

I am me. You are you.

I Belong To:

No groups, clicks or clans. I stand alone. My choices are mine.

Read My Forum Posts Because:

They're correct. haha

Favorite Things:

Movies, Music, Food

I Believe In:

God, freedom of choice, the good in humanity.