Reply to âregardless of government sizeâ, part 2 of 2:
I donât want to make this a debate over definition, but that isnât anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people âseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.â The article also notes that:
The term âsecularismâ has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
Thatâs awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists donât believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youâre either with God or youâre against Him. Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
Iâll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
âŠwhich I rebutted. I wonder if youâre missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law.
Itâs the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canât overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
Iâve spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
Thatâs awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I donât think they match, but again definitions arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
Thatâs because I donât think it makes sense. I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenât sports teams, but I couldnât think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you donât think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they werenât good reasons.
Itâs the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I canât overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
Iâm sorry but the answer is âneitherâ whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to âchristian logicâ so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
definitions arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking weâre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weâre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying?
I have no background in psychology, but I donât think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didnât get far. Sorry. But no, I donât pretend to know what you really know and what you donât. Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
Thatâs a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not. Youâre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youâre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs blessing, and whatâs far worse is youâre arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatâs why I say youâre in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didnât exist.
âVerbal Kint
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you donât think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they werenât good reasons.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all â thatâs what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youâre then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
Iâd say thatâs reasonable if I wasnât familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Itâs worth noting, though, that you mention that weâre a 246 year old country, and itâs 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iâd say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldnât be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word âyeetâ was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât see much point in talking about it.
Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesnât make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but thatâs not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donât exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnât anything physical or some being, itâs a human label.
Youâre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
You arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs blessing
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I canât say I am smarter than something I donât believe exists.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all
And therefore I want none of it.
So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
and itâs 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldnât be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Iâd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iâll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youâll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyâll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other sideâs. I suspect thatâs what youâre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itâs all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And whatâs more, Iâd say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course itâs a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât literal entities that exist.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word âphotosynthesisâ describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison dâĂȘtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iâve written comes down to that. To my view, itâs crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itâs destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât need to be to discover such flaws.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we donât understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw Godâs handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weâve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoâs Allegory of the Cave is what weâve built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect thatâs what youâre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word âsecularists/secularismâ, and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of âchristianâ, and the same applies to secularists.
I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
But where do you think the two human concepts came from?
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
So it seems we are in agreement that âgoodâ and âevilâ exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
âBut the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not.â
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to âburn the house downâ as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today?
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And thatâs a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isnât a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iâll leave you with this:
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
If you see a mistake, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
Thatâs a very broad generalization.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatâs eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonâs interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iâm curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of âchristianâ, and the same applies to secularists.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word âsecularismâ has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm all ears.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. Itâs a choice, through and through.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to âburn the house downâ as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iâm sorry if I twisted your âtry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryâ with âburn the house downâ, but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
I donât know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesnât exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatâs crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And thatâs a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If youâre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatâs reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât seem like a very compelling answer.
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of Godâs creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
I donât. Back when I played regularly, I didnât care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamyâs response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesnât understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end itâs culture war bullshit.
If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm all ears.
âThe decline of christianityâ
Every time I look to Christ for guidance
Even if we have free will that isnât an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
If youâre going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct.
Thatâs a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasnât Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering âgodâ in that context was wrong. We shouldnât just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât seem like a very compelling answer.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God.
Not only is that not true (because you added the âmost intelligentâ qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
Einstein is the most notable example.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So thatâs not really much of an argument.
I would now if I picked it back up.
Go for it! Itâs pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Ramaswamyâs response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get.
I wasnât referring to that in particular. I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video. The point was about western civilization, the insidious project to undermine it, and our duty to defend it. That point is foundational to much of our disagreement. It sounds like you stopped watching before he even got to the point.
âThe decline of christianityâ
Yeah, but that misses the bigger picture. Itâs not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism. Rather itâs a secular movement driven by Satanâs success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god.
This is one of those ways in which Wikipedia tends to be secular. It says in the intro that Western civilization is âlinkedâ to Christiandom. Thatâs misleading. Western civilization is Christiandom. The only difference is we donât call it that anymore. But everything that followed from Christiandom is built upon Christiandom as an extension of Christiandom. Though to the articleâs credit, it does later state that:
[âŠ] Western civilization, which throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture.
Thatâs close to accurate. In truth the two are inseparably identical, which is why Satan hates Western civilization, that that in turn is why youâve been convinced to believe you want to contribute to the project of undermining Western civilization.
If youâre going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Iâm not sure exactly what points youâre referring to here. Skimming through it, Iâm pretty sure I already know all of these details. The only change Iâd make is to emphasize Godâs role in all of these things, and His importance to all of these historical figures.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite, and if yours was too then youâd understand why certain children are given cancer. Itâs not for us to try to understand. Itâs for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
At some point, immanently I hope, youâll realize how absurdly wrong you are about this. You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly. I know they make it feel good when you believe them, but theyâre lying to you.
In the end it wasnât Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. Itâs like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that itâs nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Letâs say you were to throw a basketball, and make a basket. Some scientists observe it, and say âThatâs interesting. Letâs figure out what thatâs all about.â So they observe you throwing the basketball. They measure your movements, the wind movements, the ballâs PSI, the height of the basket, the material compositions of the ball and basket, just all of it. And then they formulate a theory which postulates how the ball goes through the basket. And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. God is in control, no matter what your demons tell you.
Not only is that not true [that the most intelligent scientists all believe in God] (because you added the âmost intelligentâ qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
First off, itâs self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent. Iâm trying to word that so as not to offend you, and itâs hard. Sorry. My point here is not to insult you, but just to explain my statement about the most intelligent scientists.
Secondly, the scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that theyâre disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball. So yes, atheists are more likely to become scientists than pastors. We donât need to consult any studies to know thatâs true.
Go for it! Itâs pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Maybe eventually, but not today. I have too much else on my plate. But thank you for letting me know itâs easy to play online. Thatâs something I hadnât considered.
Reply to âregardless of government sizeâ, part 2 of 2:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people âseeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.â The article also notes that:
Thatâs awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I know you believe Satan doesnât exist. Youâre in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
Youâre either with God or youâre against Him. Thatâs a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan â even if youâre unaware that youâre doing so â and even if you think thatâs impossible â thatâs what youâre doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
âŠwhich I rebutted. I wonder if youâre missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
Itâs the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I canât overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? (âNeitherâ would be an invalid answer.)
I donât think they match, but again definitions arenât really why I am here, so I will move on.
When you say âcomplete denialâ, do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
Thatâs because I donât think it makes sense. I donât believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So itâs kind of like asking âare you rooting for team A or team Bâ, but the sports teams* that youâre talking about are all fictional. It just doesnât make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they arenât sports teams, but I couldnât think of a better analogy.
Iâm embracing neither. I canât embrace something I donât believe in.
I know you donât think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they werenât good reasons.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
Iâm sorry but the answer is âneitherâ whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to âchristian logicâ so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking weâre arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but weâre using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
I have no background in psychology, but I donât think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didnât get far. Sorry. But no, I donât pretend to know what you really know and what you donât. Thatâs between you and God, not me. I just think youâve intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
Thatâs a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and itâs absurd to pretend theyâre not. Youâre ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. Youâre denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with Godâs blessing, and whatâs far worse is youâre arrogantly pretending youâre somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. Thatâs why I say youâre in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
âVerbal Kint
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all â thatâs what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, youâre then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
Iâd say thatâs reasonable if I wasnât familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Itâs worth noting, though, that you mention that weâre a 246 year old country, and itâs 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly Iâd say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldnât be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word âyeetâ was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an âobjectiveâ answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I donât see much point in talking about it.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesnât make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but thatâs not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They arenât literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil donât exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isnât anything physical or some being, itâs a human label.
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and itâs very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you donât need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
I canât say I am smarter than something I donât believe exists.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
And therefore I want none of it.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Iâd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but Iâll say I am from the north east coast.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, youâll get a hundred different definitions. Sure theyâll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other sideâs. I suspect thatâs what youâre observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. Itâs all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And whatâs more, Iâd say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course itâs a choice, and you choose too.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word âphotosynthesisâ describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but Iâm pretty sure this is the first time Iâve witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison dâĂȘtre is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what Iâve written comes down to that. To my view, itâs crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. Itâs destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we donât understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw Godâs handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where weâve built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Platoâs Allegory of the Cave is what weâve built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, itâs probable youâre evaluating an illusion.
Youâre fortunate to have a chess partner. I havenât had one in ages. I miss playing it.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word âsecularists/secularismâ, and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of âchristianâ, and the same applies to secularists.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
So it seems we are in agreement that âgoodâ and âevilâ exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to âburn the house downâ as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And thatâs a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isnât a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, Iâll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOc8ASeHYNw
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
Thatâs a very broad generalization.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I havenât had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, whatâs your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem thatâs eloquently explained in Tucker Carlsonâs interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. Iâm curious to hear your perspective on that.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word âsecularismâ has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If youâre aware of a more appropriate word, Iâm all ears.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. Itâs a choice, through and through.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. Thereâs nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So Iâm sorry if I twisted your âtry to salvage the house, or replace it if necessaryâ with âburn the house downâ, but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
I donât know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesnât exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we donât know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. Whatâs crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. Itâs created by God to work in a certain way, and weâve deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
If youâre right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then thatâs reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of Godâs glory, so it doesnât seem like a very compelling answer.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of Godâs creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I donât. Back when I played regularly, I didnât care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamyâs response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesnât understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end itâs culture war bullshit.
âThe decline of christianityâ
Even if we have free will that isnât an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_civilization
If youâre going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
Thatâs a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasnât Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering âgodâ in that context was wrong. We shouldnât just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
Not only is that not true (because you added the âmost intelligentâ qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So thatâs not really much of an argument.
Go for it! Itâs pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
I wasnât referring to that in particular. I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video. The point was about western civilization, the insidious project to undermine it, and our duty to defend it. That point is foundational to much of our disagreement. It sounds like you stopped watching before he even got to the point.
Yeah, but that misses the bigger picture. Itâs not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism. Rather itâs a secular movement driven by Satanâs success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
This is one of those ways in which Wikipedia tends to be secular. It says in the intro that Western civilization is âlinkedâ to Christiandom. Thatâs misleading. Western civilization is Christiandom. The only difference is we donât call it that anymore. But everything that followed from Christiandom is built upon Christiandom as an extension of Christiandom. Though to the articleâs credit, it does later state that:
Thatâs close to accurate. In truth the two are inseparably identical, which is why Satan hates Western civilization, that that in turn is why youâve been convinced to believe you want to contribute to the project of undermining Western civilization.
Iâm not sure exactly what points youâre referring to here. Skimming through it, Iâm pretty sure I already know all of these details. The only change Iâd make is to emphasize Godâs role in all of these things, and His importance to all of these historical figures.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite, and if yours was too then youâd understand why certain children are given cancer. Itâs not for us to try to understand. Itâs for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
At some point, immanently I hope, youâll realize how absurdly wrong you are about this. You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly. I know they make it feel good when you believe them, but theyâre lying to you.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. Itâs like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that itâs nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Letâs say you were to throw a basketball, and make a basket. Some scientists observe it, and say âThatâs interesting. Letâs figure out what thatâs all about.â So they observe you throwing the basketball. They measure your movements, the wind movements, the ballâs PSI, the height of the basket, the material compositions of the ball and basket, just all of it. And then they formulate a theory which postulates how the ball goes through the basket. And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. God is in control, no matter what your demons tell you.
First off, itâs self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent. Iâm trying to word that so as not to offend you, and itâs hard. Sorry. My point here is not to insult you, but just to explain my statement about the most intelligent scientists.
Secondly, the scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that theyâre disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball. So yes, atheists are more likely to become scientists than pastors. We donât need to consult any studies to know thatâs true.
Maybe eventually, but not today. I have too much else on my plate. But thank you for letting me know itâs easy to play online. Thatâs something I hadnât considered.