Do you have a view on the Rapture? I gave you mine.

 

And, no, I have no expectations of changing anyone's mind. Those who accepted it from the time mommy and daddy told them it was so are not going to be re-programmed without professional assistance, and I am just a lowly professor who educates your children in math and science..

 

And who was the professional who reprogrammed you? One of several left leaning college professors like yourself? Throughout my lifetime, this discussion has occurred and there is no way you will give credence to any explanation of the miracle of faith. So I shall not bother or bore you with them.

It's pretty obvious that no one on either side of the spectrum can offer any indisputable proof one way or another that proves anything one way or another, yet no one seems willing to admit this.

 

Anything can exit a human's pie hole regarding the existence of a god, or lack there of, and arguments can be made supporting the idea or refuting it, and it's certainly fine for anyone to believe either way, but neither side can offer anything with any certainty, and as a result will just continue to go around in circles.

 

If one is claiming certainty of knowledge either way without offering any solid proof one way or another, how can they not see in themselves that they are merely making assumptions?

 

No matter how logical one might feel they are at supporting their claim, or dissecting the lack of logic of someone else's claim even while offering seemingly solid points to consider, they still are ultimately proving nothing one way or another.

 

I personally tend to lean towards feeling that centuries of indoctrination has been largely effective in passing along concepts in support of a belief in a god, but that in itself proves only one thing with certainty that the power of indoctrination is powerfully effective while still proving nothing.

 

With that said, seeing that indoctrination is powerfully effective while proving nothing, using that fact as a basic for dispelling the existence of a god does not either ultimately prove that a god does not exist.

 

All I'm witnessing from both ends of the argument is merely the act of assuming while offering various levels of the possibilities or chances of the existence of a god, or lack there of, yet no one ultimately is offering any solid indisputable proof.

 

I certainly get the tendency for believers to challenge non-believers and vice versa, and admit that I tend to be in the camp that prefers to exclude as many, or all of the obvious man-made concepts in the process of my pondering the likelihood of an existence, though in doing so still can come to no solid conclusions, and find it puzzling that some solid believers tend to be resistant to examine the foundation or origins of their beliefs to have better self awareness of where and how their beliefs evolved, while they often can resent the suggestion to investigate in more depth as to how they arrived at their beliefs...

 

... and though I can respect those who have arrived at a non-belief stance from giving much thought to logic, it puzzles me how some can ridicule believers, while even in their logical analysis still cannot offer any solid evidence to disprove anything.

 

Ultimately their strong non-belief, no matter how seemingly logical, mirrors closely the stance of believers in that neither can offer solid indisputable proof of their stance.

 

Though either side have stark differences at how they arrived at what they believe or disbelieve, both side's obstinate nature to admit true lack of concrete knowledge is tremendously similar, and because of their strong stance either way, neither tend to see just how similar they are in ultimately offering nothing but their own strong stance on this endless merry-go-round of assumptions.

It's pretty obvious that no one on either side of the spectrum can offer any indisputable proof one way or another that proves anything one way or another, yet no one seems willing to admit this.

 

Anything can exit a human's pie hole regarding the existence of a god, or lack there of, and arguments can be made supporting the idea or refuting it, and it's certainly fine for anyone to believe either way, but neither side can offer anything with any certainty, and as a result will just continue to go around in circles.

 

If one is claiming certainty of knowledge either way without offering any solid proof one way or another, how can they not see in themselves that they are merely making assumptions?

 

No matter how logical one might feel they are at supporting their claim, or dissecting the lack of logic of someone else's claim even while offering seemingly solid points to consider, they still are ultimately proving nothing one way or another.

 

I personally tend to lean towards feeling that centuries of indoctrination has been largely effective in passing along concepts in support of a belief in a god, but that in itself proves only one thing with certainty that the power of indoctrination is powerfully effective while still proving nothing.

 

With that said, seeing that indoctrination is powerfully effective while proving nothing, using that fact as a basic for dispelling the existence of a god does not either ultimately prove that a god does not exist.

 

All I'm witnessing from both ends of the argument is merely the act of assuming while offering various levels of the possibilities or chances of the existence of a god, or lack there of, yet no one ultimately is offering any solid indisputable proof.

 

I certainly get the tendency for believers to challenge non-believers and vice versa, and admit that I tend to be in the camp that prefers to exclude as many, or all of the obvious man-made concepts in the process of my pondering the likelihood of an existence, though in doing so still can come to no solid conclusions, and find it puzzling that some solid believers tend to be resistant to examine the foundation or origins of their beliefs to have better self awareness of where and how their beliefs evolved, while they often can resent the suggestion to investigate in more depth as to how they arrived at their beliefs...

 

... and though I can respect those who have arrived at a non-belief stance from giving much thought to logic, it puzzles me how some can ridicule believers, while even in their logical analysis still cannot offer any solid evidence to disprove anything.

 

Ultimately their strong non-belief, no matter how seemingly logical, mirrors closely the stance of believers in that neither can offer solid indisputable proof of their stance.

 

Though either side have stark differences at how they arrived at what they believe or disbelieve, both side's obstinate nature to admit true lack of concrete knowledge is tremendously similar, and because of their strong stance either way, neither tend to see just how similar they are in ultimately offering nothing but their own strong stance on this endless merry-go-round of assumptions.

 

 

Your name should be Plato instead of B-Ball- fan. I really enjoy reading your thoughts.I bet you are a riot at dinner parties. j/k I like to philosophize as well but on here I prefer to play the role of Trump to Plato, provocateur to philosopher. In real life, I am Socrates. On here, I am Morton Downey Jr. It's more fun to be a devil's advocator than to placate the masses, especially when discussing politics or religion. I love pulling your strings and I love when you oblige me. If, in the process, I can prompt you to think a little deeper about what you believe and why you believe, and maybe even question what you believe for the first time in your lives, then my time here will have been well served.

33 posts deep and not a single soul with the courage to stand up for what you believe. Are you that embarrassed to admit that you believe you will oneday disappear into thin air in the blink of an eye?

33 posts deep and not a single soul with the courage to stand up for what you believe. Are you that embarrassed to admit that you believe you will oneday disappear into thin air in the blink of an eye?

No embarrassment here. You are like a constant noise..........eventually people just tune you out.

No embarrassment here. You are like a constant noise..........eventually people just tune you out.

 

Please don't quote him it defeats the ignore function.

No embarrassment here. You are like a constant noise..........eventually people just tune you out.

 

Fact is, no one will own up to this crazy belief. Typical of most people that adhere to man-made religions. Cowardly and hypocritical. On to the next topic. You failed miserably in explaining this one. Fact is, you can't explain any of the crazy tenets that you purport to believe.

Fact is, no one will own up to this crazy belief. Typical of most people that adhere to man-made religions. Cowardly and hypocritical. On to the next topic. You failed miserably in explaining this one. Fact is, you can't explain any of the crazy tenets that you purport to believe.

 

Sad............

Sad............

 

Agree. Those who make such supernatural claims should be prepared to stand up and defend them. Very sad indeed.

Agree. Those who make such supernatural claims should be prepared to stand up and defend them. Very sad indeed.

It is not something that can be scientifically proven or tangible. For me it is a feeling that starts in the heart and progresses to include thought as a person matures, it just feels right. It isn't something that can be shown to you like a math equation or chemical theory. If you have it you feel it but no one can make or show you how it feels because it is an individual spiritualism. This most likely doesn't explain it to you but I tried.

It is not something that can be scientifically proven or tangible. For me it is a feeling that starts in the heart and progresses to include thought as a person matures, it just feels right. It isn't something that can be shown to you like a math equation or chemical theory. If you have it you feel it but no one can make or show you how it feels because it is an individual spiritualism. This most likely doesn't explain it to you but I tried.

 

Thanks for your response. I do appreciate the attempt. If it works for you and your life, that's what's important. I do believe individual spiritualism is important. Unfortunately, man-made religions often get in the way of healthy spiritualism.

33 posts deep and not a single soul with the courage to stand up for what you believe. Are you that embarrassed to admit that you believe you will oneday disappear into thin air in the blink of an eye?

 

See post #14.

See post #14.

 

Gotcha. Send me those notes if you'd like and I'll be glad to read them. Isn't the Rapture idea based on the various interpretations of First Thessalonians and how they relate to interpretations of passages from Second Thessalonians, First Corinthians, Matthew, and Revelation?

Gotcha. Send me those notes if you'd like and I'll be glad to read them. Isn't the Rapture idea based on the various interpretations of First Thessalonians and how they relate to interpretations of passages from Second Thessalonians, First Corinthians, Matthew, and Revelation?

 

Here is the website

 

http://lystracoc.sermon.net/main/main/20549100

Here is the website

 

http://lystracoc.sermon.net/main/main/20549100

 

 

Thanks again.