A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE. during September 1970.. Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

Lewis was a lay Anglican theologian who believed the story of the dying and rising godman, who preached the end of the world was imminent, and never kept his promise to return actually happened.. As an atheist He began writing fantasy fiction but switched to Christian apologetics after J.R.R. Tolkein and his other friends convinced him to promote Christianity.

@olacogumelo3789

2 ай бұрын

Sounds like you really know everything about the man’s heart and mind!

Freud and Marx were not logically fallacious. there is not one single logic that is not based on premises. Premises (in mathematics called axioms) can't be "proven". They are set. Logical deductions can be made from such premises and it's here, where there can be fallacies. Freud and Marx are by no means the only ones that have seen religions as products of wishful thinking born from suffering under the human condition. It's a very plausible view that is widely corroborated by neuroscience and anthropology etc.

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

If the genetic fallacy is a fallacy, then Freud and Marx were fallacious in so far as they committed the genetic fallacy. The fact that others have committed the same fallacy does not make it any less a fallacy.

@karlschmied6218

3 ай бұрын

​@@christopherkaczor8288 So you are saying that any of the mutually contradictory religions cannot be viewed from a neuro-scientific anthropological standpoint because that would always be a genetic fallacy. But I think it makes a lot of sense to look at religions from a neuro-scientific anthropological point of view. Since you mention Einstein, physicists and the users of physical theories find it useful to replace the various myths about the origin of the world with theories that are more meaningful, in the sense that they reduce complex things to simpler basic rules. This is what Marx and Freud and modern anthropologists and philosophers, among others, have done in another sense. They can very convincingly trace the complex religious traditions back to simple human conditions, which I find very enlightening. The tribalism of the religions, on the other hand, has had terrible consequences, as we can see again and again. Actual examples are the religious conflicts in the Middle East, the invasion of Ukraine by Putin, motivated and supported by religious fervor, and the Christo-fascists who want to establish a theocracy in the USA with Trump at the helm.

@adisonransley

3 ай бұрын

Premises can be either true or untrue, I’m not sure what you mean by premises cannot be proven. If I suggest a premise - “all singers are male”, that can indeed be “proven”. It is the soundness of the premises that dictates the soundness of the conclusion. Marx was fundamentally invalid and unsound. And, no, anthropology, biology etc do not immediately discredit belief in God as a coping mechanism. Have a read of Simon Conway Morris’ work, he is a well-respected scholar who suggests that convergent evolution points towards the conclusion that evolution is a bit more like a “search engine” for set intelligent conclusions, and that under these premises the existence of a creator becomes scientifically all the more congruent. This isn’t an argument from intelligent design - far from it, and he himself actually despises that argument as weak. You should look into him :)

@adisonransley

3 ай бұрын

I might add - the only predominant group of academics who discredit belief in God altogether as an “illness” people need to be freed from, are the new atheists; an almost exclusively conservative, white, male group of people that sprung out of a post-Protestant intellectual environment. These people are fairly well renounced as being intellectually dishonest and guided by passionate bias more than any desire to search for scientific truth. There’s a hyper emphasis on “beliefism” there that makes one morally superior than another by suggesting that belief in a creator is an illness, and that they are the “enlightened ones” because they discredit such illness.

@karlschmied6218

3 ай бұрын

@@adisonransley You say "belief in God". Which god do you have in mind? And what is the evidence for 1. the god you have in mind and 2. all the other gods that are in other peoples minds?

*Bulverism Description:* This is a combination of circular reasoning and the genetic fallacy. It is the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer's suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer's identity. Logical Form: Person 1 makes argument X. Person 2 assumes person 1 must be wrong because of their suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with their identity. Therefore, argument X is flawed or not true. Example #1: Martin: All white people are not racists. Charlie: Yes they are. You just believe that because you are white. Explanation: Charlie is making two errors: 1) he is assuming that Martin must be wrong and 2) he is basing that assumption on an accidental feature of Martin, the amount of pigmentation in his skin. Example #2: Mom: Remember, dear. Nobody's going to buy the cow if they get the milk for free. Daughter: You are only saying that because you are my mother. Daughter: Wait... did you just call me a cow? Explanation: Mom is doing her best to advise her daughter that she should be a bit more sexually reserved with her male suitors, cautioning her that she is unlikely to get any commitments unless she holds back sex. Although the claim is indeed dubious, the daughter assumes that it is wrong because of the source (her mother) and her mother's suspected motives (to get her married). So the mother must be wrong (assumption) because of her motives, and it is because of her motives that she is wrong (circular reasoning and genetic fallacy). Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition) (Dr. Bo's Critical Thinking Series) (p. 157). eBookIt.com. Kindle Edition.

_"Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx adopted similar strategies"_ Poisoning the well right off the bat, huh? Well, that's an interesting way to start a video about _logical fallacies!_ Heh, heh. But OK, let's see what you've got. _"No matter how egregious the psychological origins of a belief may be, the logic of the argument for it is independent of the psychology."_ I agree. Faith-based people worldwide _overwhelmingly_ believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. That's just a fact. But it doesn't mean none of those gods are real. Of course, it doesn't mean any of those gods _are_ real, either. And that clear pattern of religious belief is exactly what we'd expect if all gods are simply imaginary. It's *not* what we'd expect if there really _is_ a god who wants people to know him, who even wants people to _worship_ him, instead of all those other, imaginary gods. I mean, how inept can a god _be?_ But you're right. That doesn't prove your god _doesn't_ exist. But why should we believe that your god, but not any of those other gods, really _is_ real? Why should we believe that your religion, but not any of those others, is actually true? You theists contradict each other, so you can't _all_ be right. (You _can_ all be wrong, though.) _"Even if it were true that all atheists share the same experience of defective fathers"_ Of course, it's *not* true. It's not even _close_ to being true. Whereas it _is_ true that for the vast majority of faith-based people worldwide, their religious belief seems to be an accident of birth - i.e. that they overwhelmingly believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. But we've already agreed that the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy. So why are you even bringing this up? It's not even _true._ You seem to admit that, as you say "Even if it _were_ true" (my emphasis). So why would you repeat a lie when you know that this would be a logical fallacy _even if it were true?_ I'm reminded of you starting off by poisoning the well... _"The genetic fallacy leads to lazy thinking, rather than actually engaging with what a person says"_ I agree. Indeed, I'd say the same thing about the poisoning the well fallacy. _"Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or disbelieve anything about anything without having to bother to deal with facts or logic."_ Again, I agree. So let's deal with facts and logic, then. None of this proves that your god is real _or_ imaginary. We both agree about that, apparently. Indeed, you've said nothing controversial about logical fallacies (although I'd question _how_ you presented this stuff that we all agree about). But why do you stop _now?_ Let's deal with facts and logic, then. How about one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please (one at a time is all we can manage here), but be specific. Why is *one* too much to ask? We want to deal with facts and logic, right? And evidence is clearly how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. (If you have a _better_ way, a more _reliable_ way, of distinguishing reality from delusion and wishful-thinking _without_ evidence, I'd love to hear it. But I know of none.) I don't know if you're a Christian, but you do mention C.S. Lewis. So, if you _are_ a Christian, I'd also accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. After all, you're right. The fact that faith-based people worldwide _overwhelmingly_ tend to believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child does *not* prove that none of those gods are real. I agree with you about that. It's probably pretty good evidence against the idea of an all-powerful god who _wants_ human beings to know him - again, how inept can a god _be?_ - but I won't even argue for that. After all, who knows what some invisible, immaterial, magical being would really want? Gods work in mysterious ways, right? Heh, heh. That's not proof that _all_ of those gods are just imaginary. But I'm not asking for proof. I don't think that proof is even _possible_ in the real-world - not just about gods, but about _anything_ that supposedly exists in reality. We're not infallible. And there's always an alternative explanation we can't rule out (though it might be quite implausible). But again, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. So how about *one* specific piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Why would *one* be too much to ask? And if you don't have even *one,* does that mean you have *nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? After all, I agree with you about the genetic fallacy. But that's not why I'm an atheist (an agnostic atheist, to be precise - I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are just imaginary). The genetic fallacy is not why I don't believe religious claims. I don't believe religious claims because they don't seem to be backed up by anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking - not that I've heard so far, at least. So, how about you? Do _you_ have anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking?

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

How is my saying ""Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx adopted similar strategies" poisoning the well?

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

I've addressed (at some length) evidence to believe that God exists in some of my other videos, so you can check that out if you'd like.

@Bill_Garthright

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 Thanks for the reply. But *one* piece of good evidence is too much to ask? *One?* I watch plenty of videos, often from Christian or Muslim apologists. Typically, I find that they're just preaching to the choir. They make vague claims, and when it seems to back up the religion some theist was taught to believe as a child, they're comforted by that. Theists don't seem to look at religious claims critically (unless it's from a religion they _weren't_ raised to believe, but I rarely find Christians commenting on Muslim videos or vice versa). I do look at their claims critically, and those claims never seem to hold up. Besides, videos are passive. I can't ask questions. I can't ask for clarification. I can't object to assumptions. Well, I _can,_ in the comments. But you can see how _that_ goes. I'm just told to watch more videos. :)

@adisonransley

3 ай бұрын

I don’t know either, that phrase is a premise intending to liken two approaches to a certain topic. One might call it an analogy? It doesn’t hold innate negative connotations 🤷‍♂️

@Bill_Garthright

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 I replied to you, but my comment seems to have been removed. So, there's no point to trying to talk here, I guess. Too bad.

Hmmm...seems to argue against the genetic fallacy by using others, specifically strawman fallacy. Freud did NOT say that ALL ideas or thoughts or beliefs come from repressed sexual issues, nor did Marx say that ALL ideas or thoughts or beliefs come purely from economic epiphenomena. Lewis should have known better than to make that claim, and you should probably have not used it. Now, the claims by Freud or Marx MIGHT be a genetic fallacy - or they might be the start of tracing the historical origin or development of an idea. The claim does not require that all believers since the beginning of religion believe for that reason - religion has gained a momentum of its own. People have a very strong tendency to believe whatever religion they were raised to believe, with sincerity - making religion very geographical. Finally, it is NOT a genetic fallacy to trace the historical development of religion in general, or any one religion in particular, as a means of assessing its veracity. I think that historical examination shows pretty clearly that they are all human inventions, their god-beliefs included. And that is a logically sound reason for not believing in any of them.

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

Marx did ineed think that thinking was an epiphenomena of economic realities. I totally agree with you that there is no fallacy in tracing the origins of a belief, intellectual history is a perfectly respectable endeavor. What is a fallacy is saying that the origins of a belief determine the truth or falsity of a belief.

@njhoepner

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 Maybe...maybe not. A belief that originates in magical thinking at the very minimum has a credibility problem. It could perhaps just happen to be right by sheer dumb luck, but that's all. An idea that originates as a grift would almost certainly be false just on that basis alone. So I don't think one can be absolute about that. I think that what Marx actually said was that a person's social class was determined by their relationship to the means of production, and that this in turn influenced beliefs and behavior. If it determined all beliefs and behavior, then obviously there would be no need to awaken class consciousness, it would already be there. He recognized said need, thus he could not hold such a deterministic position.

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

@@njhoepnerMarx held that all ideas, real or illusory, including ideas of human nature, are expressions of socio- economic relations and activities. If dreams can give rise to legitimate scientific insights, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy.

@njhoepner

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 Again, no. Strawman misunderstanding of Marx. As for dreams giving rise to scientific insights, scientists work on problems for long periods of time, think about them, and no doubt their subconscious continues that work when they're sleeping. And occasionally this can lead to a flash if inspiration...it is the result of the hard work that led up to it, not some random bolt out of the blue disconnected from anything else. I don't think that has much to do with the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is insisting that a person's ideas are wrong because they are a bad person, or were wrong about something else. Like, for example, interstate highways are wrong because they are a copy of a nazi idea. The genetic fallacy is NOT saying that Einstein was wrong about special relativity because the solution finally came to him while watching a boat pass by and looking at the movement of its wake.

@OBZRV82

2 ай бұрын

​@@njhoepnerWhat about the "scientific theory" of spontaneous regeneration? It doesn't get more magical than that. 😅

Yes this explains a lot and goes in depth to the basic solution that neither can prove nor disprove another but only believe that their thinking is the truth above all others

@Bill_Garthright

3 ай бұрын

So what's the solution to that? After all, scientists _do_ come to a worldwide consensus on issues. And scientists are still human. So how do _they_ do it, while religions can't? How do historians come to a consensus? It's harder for historians, but they still manage - not with everything, but where there's sufficient evidence. We don't see different history, depending on what you were taught to believe as a child. The answer is obvious, isn't it? *Evidence* is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. But then, what if someone _prefers_ wishful-thinking? :) PS. I don't believe my thinking is "the truth above all others." I think that evidence is the best way to distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking, but if you have some _better_ way, some more reliable way, that _doesn't_ involve evidence, I'd love to hear it. And I never ask for proof, either. I don't think that proof is even _possible_ in the real world - not just about gods, but about anything. No matter what, we _could_ be wrong. And when it comes to the real world, there's always an alternative explanation we can't rule out. No, I just ask for evidence - good evidence - because evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. If there is no good evidence backing up a claim, then - at the very least - it's _indistinguishable_ from wishful-thinking. So how can I take such a claim seriously?

@c.galindo9639

3 ай бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright if you are seeking evidence in God it is the intangible Truth that we inherently know and abide by to distinguish righteous actions from wicked actions. You are thinking of an Earthly sense of presenting a convincing truth when God has already created existence and arranged everything as it should be for us here on this Earth and we are to pick up the pieces for ourselves to better ourselves. The True Way is beside Him and in His Will. Being there would make this reality become an obvious illusion to what existence really is. It is already obvious through our free will and our complex way of being when we take into account what makes a human, human. The physical evidence is creation. The intangible evidence is everything: mentally, emotionally, and spiritually

@Bill_Garthright

3 ай бұрын

@@c.galindo9639 So,... *nothing,* then? You have *nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking? Just a bunch of vague claims? Well, that's why I can't even take religious claims _seriously,_ let alone believe them myself. You make a lot of vague claims there. Can you pick *one* of them and *make your case* with actual evidence, with _something_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking? To go back to your original comment, the reason why religions can't even agree with _each other_ is because it's all indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. Typically, you were taught different things as children, so you want different things to be true. Converts still exist, of course - in every direction. People aren't identical. But converts are a very small minority. Worldwide, faith-based people _overwhelmingly_ tend to believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as children - or that was part of the culture where they grew up, at least. Religious belief tends to be very tribal. You disagree with each other _because_ you have no good evidence. You disagree _because_ it's mostly just wishful-thinking (and because whatever we're taught to believe as children typically seems 'normal' to us).

@c.galindo9639

3 ай бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright you are quite entertaining in a simplistic manner taht resembles a child. Not real? Based on your “not real” claim itself? Now how can we make claim for something as real when we distinguish ourselves, our existence, livelihood, universe, and more through our ways of “not real” claims? For something that is “not real” it is a quite powerful thing, seeing as it influences all of humanity into existence and how we willfully live. Hmm. So by taking your claims seriously. Why argue over these semantics such as murdering, r@ping, stealing, slavery, and so forth; the ideas in which we willfully condemn and agree that we should not partake in those actions as they aren’t befitting of our nature? Such a ponderous and mysterious thing to question yet we all inherently know righteous actions from wicked actions and we separate ourselves from good and evil based on that understanding. Also many ideas are formed through “nothing” yet it is the source of our being. For something you describe as “nothing” it is very much present in our existence and known by us through what we will into our being. Maybe learn the definition of intangible and figure out how that is real and separate from our tangible world perception

@Bill_Garthright

3 ай бұрын

@@c.galindo9639 _"you are quite entertaining in a simplistic manner taht resembles a child."_ Great! I, too, am entertained when theists are reduced to silly insults. Of course, I'd also be entertained if you actually _had_ something backing up your religious beliefs. So maybe I'm just easily entertained, huh? _"Based on your “not real” claim itself?"_ Huh? Who are you quoting? I have no idea what you're even talking about. _"Now how can we make claim for something as real when we distinguish ourselves, our existence, livelihood, universe, and more through our ways of “not real” claims?"_ Heh, heh. *What?* Again, what are you _talking_ about? That's just word salad, as far as I can tell. Maybe _you_ know what you're trying to say, but it's certainly meaningless to me. _"So by taking your claims seriously."_ *What* claims? Again, what are you _talking_ about? You seem to be referencing your own imagination here. _"we all inherently know righteous actions from wicked actions"_ I wish that were true. But you must be talking about the fantasy world in your own imagination, not the real world where people vehemently disagree. Of course, we're all the same species, living on the same planet at the same time. We have a lot of things in common, so many of us _can_ agree on many things. But we disagree about lots more. And I have no idea what that has to do with a god _anyway._ I asked you for evidence, but you don't seem to _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking. Well, that's why I can't take your religious beliefs seriously. _"Also many ideas are formed through “nothing”_ Again, what are you _talking_ about? Maybe you should hold off on the drugs before commenting next time? Because you didn't reply to anything I said. And past the silly insults at the start of your comment, nothing else was even rational enough for me to figure out what you were _trying_ to say. Look, I'm happy to talk even to people who think that silly insults are appropriate. None of that bothers me. Some people panic when they realize they have nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up their religious beliefs. But you need to learn to express yourself. Because, as far as I could tell, this was just a bunch of word salad.

If a god really existed, we didn’t have to “believe “ in him. Just like the Sun, we don’t believe in Him, he is right there

@christopherkaczor8288

3 ай бұрын

Why?

@titoperez1327

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 why what?

@deadlysin8867

3 ай бұрын

Makes no sense my man, so if you are stuck in a Ford Engine, and you see te pistons, the crankshaft and so on..., than you would also say, if Henry Ford really existed, than you wouldnt have to believe in him he would be just there, so if god says that he is outside from time and space then you can apply the same logic which you applied to the universe to an Ford engine, do you see the fallacy? Jesus loves you my man search for him and you will find, for it is written “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.„ ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭7‬ God bless you

@user-bh1dp4wg3v

2 ай бұрын

​@@deadlysin8867 well said. As well by believing it is actually ment to have faith in God, and the meaning of faith is trust (fide means to trust). Surelly to trust someone you need sufficent evidance to trust them. Thus God provides us many evidance and constantly proves that we can trust Him. Thus having faith. Pray to the Lord and ask for evidance and answers, and they will be given to you.

@DetVen

2 ай бұрын

Why are you talking in past tense? If God existed, then God exists now and forever.

First the author repudiates Marx and Freud because of their speculative psychological approach, only to embark himself on a highly smelly adventure of suspecting prominent atheists of all subconsciously entertaining patricidal phantasies. The lack of sincerity of this intellectual approach aside, the fundamental issue is not even touched upon. The problem is not whether or not atheist, or rather skeptic, thoughts through the course of history have proven that god - or better a god - does not exist. Rigorous scrutiny even might produce the result that they have failed to do so. But that would not change a bit the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, who arrogate the divine existence, but, through the course of history, have failed to provide as much as one shred of evidence for it. And the feebleness of their claims regularly shows in their aggressive reactions when questioned.

@christopherkaczor8288

2 ай бұрын

"adventure of suspecting prominent atheists of all subconsciously entertaining patricidal phantasies." Uh? Where? See my other videos for reasons I think think God exists.

@bryant475

2 ай бұрын

You missed the point. He applied the genetic fallacy to the "patricidal fantasies", that is- even if it were true that all atheists were fatherless, it wouldn't make atheism false. Also, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence- mostly philosophical and scientific, and for Jesus- mostly historical and archeological. I recommend looking into the videos, sites, books of: Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel!

Are we still talking about god? The only property that god seems to have, is its existance. Utterly uninteresting.

@christopherkaczor8288

2 ай бұрын

If God exists, then God not only exists but must be intelligent, loving, and moving.

@karlschmied6218

2 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 Intelligence and love are human qualities. Intelligence is the ability to deal with problems. Does God deal with problems? If you don't believe that, then how can he be intelligent? In my opinion, it is therefore very likely that all gods are human self-projections. We have invented an imaginary being that does not have the flaws that we feel and experience. This makes sense from a psychological perspective. Gods are the beings we want to be or who are supposed to protect us when we cannot be them. They are pictures of imaginary parents. That's also why apologists often say that atheists think they are gods, that is they are projecting their thinking onto them. But many if not most atheists know and accept their human condition.

@christopherkaczor8288

2 ай бұрын

@@karlschmied6218 Thank you for your comments. I have in this video talked about why I think that the Unmoved Mover, or First Cause must be intelligent. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ha1o18WaY8S9lLw.html&ab_channel=ChristopherKaczor

@karlschmied6218

2 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 Have you canceled my comment in which I said that intelligence and love are human traits. By intelligence we mean the capability of dealing with problems. If your god is intelligent, does he have to deal with problems? I think all gods are human self-projections. We are able to recognize our flaws and some of us would like to get rid of them. So I think it is very likely, that many people like the idea of being protected by a perfect protector. An actual example are the evangelicals in the US. They believe in the lies of a con man because he makes them feel comfortable. Feeling comfortable is one if not the greatest motivations in human life. Facing oddities is hard.

@karlschmied6218

2 ай бұрын

@@christopherkaczor8288 "I think that the Unmoved Mover, or First Cause must be intelligent." As I already stated (but has been deleted): Intelligence is a human term describing a human trait: It means the capability of dealing with problems. So if your god is intelligent, he has problems to deal with. A god with problems contradicts the claim of almightiness.