"Illumination doesn't come from imagining figures of light, but in making our own darkness conscious." ~ Carl Jung. Ask yourself of any ideology: "Is this version of light magic or is it real?"

Did Jung come up with that quote himself, or was it revealed to him by his "spirit guide" Philemon?

Not much is come up with alone. It almost always builds on others. Oh, except maybe if you get the stones straight from an omniscient god. Then you never have to learn anything; in fact, learning is dangerous and "worthless." Indeed Jung was deeply mystical, and no mimer of thousands-of-year-old falsehoods. So you probably aren't too keen on him.

Key question concerning any doctrine or ideology: "Does this constitute a magic claim, or is it in keeping with the way the rest of reality works?"

I find learning to be quite worthwhile. My personal belief is that failing to learn is quite dangerous.

If you study the history of science, it was (among other things) the belief that the cosmos was created by God that helped to provide the impetus to pursue science. "If God created it, it must be worth investigating and learning more and more about it." (I'm not quoting anyone in particular.)

Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus while Atheists believe in the virgin birth of the entire universe: Choose your miracle.

(I'll have to run down the source of that quote.)

"Blessed are those willing and able to see beyond the shadows and myths of their cultural conditioning." ~~ modified Plato.

Great quote! I totally agree with it!

My own "cultural conditioning" was fairly hostile to Christianity, but by God's grace I overcame the shadows and myths of my cultural conditioning and received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior!

Yeah but you're a special "case."

God needs chemistry to produce life. Chemistry does not need god to produce life.

Okay. A good explanation of why God created chemicals.

1. Chemicals are not a sufficient condition to produce life.

2. The scientific principle of Biogenesis is that only life can produce life. Do you reject Biogenesis?

3. Expecting you address the above with a rant, instead of arguments. Maybe you'll surprise us all this time!

Stay well be safe.

I've already said "Uncle" to you, surrendered, because of your superior rationality. Somewhere between the genocide and infanticide as an expression of love, the witch killing, and the vampire cult blood drinking ... you won the debate. Congrats.

But on the current point, I didn't even say chemicals were sufficient to produce life ... just that they don't need god. Abio is good with me, but nobody knows, most especially those who couldn't read or write thousands of years ago but were certain about this life origin thing. LOL. As to the "incredible odds" of the assembly of life "randomly": 1. the amount of trials and chances across the cosmos is googolplexes every nano-second, and 2. we don't even know what life is, and it will probably turn out a lot like the wave/particle thing. As in, "We've already made the declaration that it must be a wave or a particle, so how in the world can it be both?" LOL. Our definitions are BS. We already have in-betweeners even by our own limited definitions.

Saying life can't come from non-life is just a totally spurious, fallacious, prejudiced declaration. What is it that is magic about that? Can't wet come from non-wet? Blue from non-blue? Matter from non-matter? It's a kindergarten bromide: "Life can't come from non-life. I know this because ... because ... because ... well, it just seems like it to me. It sounds good."

You're setting life up as some kind of magic, otherworldly thing. And just declaring that there is no continuum between life and death SUCH AS THERE IS FOR SO MUCH UNDER THE SUN. The insistence that the nature of things must fit our arbitrary definition will go the same way as the rest of the early definitions. Hey, the universe itself fits more of the criteria of life than some "life forms."

Thank you!

You're literally contradicting yourself:

In your previous post, you claimed that "God needs chemistry to produce life."

In the current post, you claim "we don't even know what life is."

Well, if "we don't even know what life is", then it isn't necessarily the case that "God needs chemistry to produce life." It doesn't take you long to contradict yourself, now does it?

As expected, a good portion of the rest of your post is your typical ranting.

Stay well and be safe!

Your religious side considers your philosophical side an embarrassment and worthless. Your philosophical side realizes that your apologetics side is an embarrassment and an abomination. So the two remain compartmentalized to effectively avoid confronting the cognitive dissonance. It falls on all of us to confront dissonance within, whatever its form, but under the rules of religion it can't be done. Under the rules of philosophy and rational spirituality, this is the first point of life, to "know and experience thyself." Keep this whole disingenuous apologetics pursuit away from me.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!


addendum: Bye!!

Depends on which god you mean. I assign a very low probability to Jesus stories or similar religions being factual but a reasonable "maybe" if you start including any kind of higher power. A large portion of the equity comes from pantheism, the view that the entirety of existence is a conscious being. This probably can never be proven even if were true

Gratefulness and gratitude -- toward life itself -- is a great and noble sentiment. Personifying it onto a god who murders indiscriminately ... not so much, and is a classic mistake of medieval and pre-medieval belief systems. Such is true, and cannot be argued otherwise except by employing magic claims.

Gratitude requires a subject (the person who is grateful) and an object (the cause of that which the subject is grateful for).

What do you mean by gratitude "toward life itself?" Are you grateful for the Big Bang? Are you grateful for your great ancestors (e.g. the primordial ooze from eons ago)?

Please be specific. Thanks.

What makes one sentiment more noble than another sentiment? Do you believe that gratitude is a more noble sentiment than hate? Why or why not? Thanks.

STFU. You are an insult to discussion. It's blood drinking day, such an enlightened belief, and worship the greatest mass killer in history day. It's all okay with you. And it even gives you a defense for your bigotry ... because the omniscient creator of all human beings is himself a bigot. Imagine that little twist.

Back to ranting, I see!

How am I "an insult to discussion?" I am actually trying to have a discussion, while you are just ranting.

Your utter hatred for religion has turned you into a drooling, raving lunatic when religion is discussed.

You post in a Religion Forum, then get triggered when a religious person engages you.

If you don't want to discuss religion with religious people, then you might want to consider not posting in a forum dedicated to religious discussion.

You can also put me on IGNORE if you wish to post here without seeing my responses to you.

You always seem to get around the blood drinking, mass killing and bigotry as central tenets of the religion ... instead insisting that I'm ranting about it instead of taking it straight out of the Bible. So ... that is excellent apologetics on your part, meaning, an excellent deflection of key points which you can't defend, meaning, a very dishonest insult to discussion. As I've said many times, my animosity is not towards religion but toward such lying ass apologetics.

So let's hear it once without diverting. You are good with blood drinking, you are good with mass killing, you are good with bigotry. You believe these things are moral and good and loving because they did thousands of years ago.

Okay.

No. With some nuance as to the specific meaning of "blood drinking", Roman Catholics would argue that drinking Christ's blood at Mass is a sacred sacrament. But since I ain't Catholic, I ain't the guy to argue that.

Sometimes. Everybody dies at some point. Only God has the authority to take life, since he created all life. There are circumstances under which God has authorized man to kill.

Sometimes.

I like this B.I.G.O.T.:

Bible
Is
God's
Overwhelming
Truth

Something that was believed thousands of years ago is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for either accepting or rejecting said belief.

Go in peace and F off with the apologetic strategies.

Thank you for your typical intelligent response.

You can now go back to ranting, since you obviously have no interest in a serious conversation.

But, before you go back to flailing your arms and shouting at the clouds, I have a quick question or two for you:

Why do you participate in a Religious Discussion Forum if you don't actually desire to have a discussion with religious people? Why don't you just start or join a safe space on Discord or wherever so you can rant and rave and high-five your atheist homeboys without having your comfort zone disturbed by religious people?

I answered #1 several times. I do indeed greatly value open-minded discussion on the subject, but true enough, ignorant stubborn indoctrination apologetics triggers me ... or did. I could have been in that exact position once, miming it, saying whatever is needed to defend instead of what is reasonable.

So in such serious discussions if one posits the quantum field as god (it houses all knowledge/is omniscient, it is everywhere/omnipresent, creates all things by amplifying them into 'existence'), then it is entertained by a mind on the other side. Instead with apologetics, you get things like, "No. Even if that is right, it is Jesus that created the quantum field." And of course we see a lot of evidence of that kind of scientific knowledge in the Bible. Not. So the apologist/mimer sticks to his guns: "I have faith that it's the blood sacrificing, mass killer, bigoted anthropomorphic immortal they told me about in Sunday School that created the quantum field. Haven't you read Genesis?"

And so, they make themselves a laughable disgrace to the forum of ideas.