Is there any way I can delete this post? On the other hand, I give mods permission to destroy this one. Messed up, don't really feel like explaining.

Yes, and that source is shit. If you had read any of the responses to you, you'd have paid attention regarding the method of science. "Miracles" are not only not scientific, but are not verifiable in any way regarding independent sources because, by definition, a miracle can not be repeated. Oh wait, that last tidbit of mine is already taken care of by the former fact - that they aren't investigatable by scientific means. Of course, if only you'd pay attention to the good people who have been trying to get you to understand...

1 John 4:7

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. ////

Yes, ancient elegant John. Thing is, the understanding of "God", as meaning reality, is today a bit different. Geezz, back then when a child died from a flu, many thought they were God cursed etc. and needed the church cure.   

I often say "love is the answer" to all our "solvable" problems, But I will shoot an intruder in the spirit of "loving" and defending life etc. In the spirit of love, story Jesus was also lovingly indignant against the religious hypocrites.

I find the atheist free thinking humanitarian non-superstitious materialists , to be generally the most loving and conscious aware. Atheism is not against love ..... but to say "god is love" has a dogmatic religious tone that begs the reply that no MASTER god of LOVE is in control, as Hate and indifference exists, and is god not all reality ?  

Why don't you join the atheists Paisley and help destroy superstitious God of Abe religions. What G_O_D is ? , IS science, in all it's broad intuitive desire to understand reality and that is the love of "GOD" cosmos  ...... Get over Abraham's god already .....  Jesus/Buddha would insist ...... Let's stop confusing dogma and intuition. We don't know much about G O D (REALITY)  is our truth, so tell the world to stop making shit up .....

The LOVE message is the greatest of all, but why fuck that up with dogy GOD shit ?  

I AM GOD AS YOU, now what ???   YES,  LOVE LOVE LOVE .....
 
I think you need too praise and love the caring and angry atheists ....       
    

If there wasn't religion and so then Theists, there would be no Atheists, as we all would be ONE with this whatever is going on ..... damn we are stupid ..... as science most truthfully admits ..... damn I AM PISSED , WTF ????? to do ?????   Yeah,  LOVE  is fury ......    KILL THE  DOGMA  

Ultimate Truth ?  Good luck , now what ? God is what ????     

Right. So. Love is ordering the slaughter of every man, woman, child, ox, sheep, chicken etc etc in a city because they happen to be/belong to folks of a different tribe? Love is putting people to death for potentially muddling inheritance lines? (which, btw, is why adultery was so heinous. If a woman slept around, it made it hard to tell to which man's property her sons had lawful claim.)

Besides which, you can't define love with 'God is love' if you've defined God with 'God is love' if you want either definition to have any validity. All you've done, in effect is to define '1' as '1'. Good job. I guess the love that is God has no other meaning you could have used, and so both words, for purposes of your posts, should be replaced with <insert meaningless term here>.

Sorry to interrupt your excellent posts BMcD.  

I just had to make a prediction regarding Paisley.   Despite the excellent atheist rebuttals in this thread it has already become an exercise in futility.  It is literally a waste of time and intellect to further engage Paisley in debate.  His mind is closed and any dissenting views are "absurd", blah blah.  

I suspect that Paisley will remain on this thread until all interest is lost and the thread dies out.  At that point Paisley will assert, due to lack of responses,  that he has successfully defeated all atheist counter-arguments.

Time will tell.

( if and when it happens, I will bump this post just for grins. )

What Paisley is doing is conflating several meanings of the word "absurd" in order to make a statement appear logically valid, when in fact it is a non sequitur.  What he fails to realize is that a word can have many definitions, but it does not mean all of them simultaneously in any given instance.  Indeed, such a thing would be absurd.

If lack of response is the criterion for defeat, then paisley has already lost; he routinely ignores arguments and direct criticism of his "reasoning", and instead keeps spinning his gerbil wheel of non-rationality ("god is love, love is god"; "material is absurd, absurd is material" ).  paisley dodges and he knows it. 

I know. You're making my point. 

Actually, there are two forms of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism positively affirms that there is no God. You are only stating weak atheism.

No, this is not true. Everything is observable phenomena. Materialism itself is just a metaphysical belief. (In particular, it is the belief that permanent substances or particles constitute ultimate reality and that all change is explained by the re-arrangement of these particles.) 

I'm not trying to impress you. I am simply refuting your assertion that there are only two panentheists in the world. The appropriate response would have been for you to graciously concede the point. Instead, you have decided to create a straw-man argument in order to divert attention from the fact that you were wrong.

They are all sick .... and it's contagious ..... what to do ?

Be prepared to ask several times...with nothing but a non-answer in the end.

1.)  Even though in your typical cowardly manner you completely sidestepped  the issue of religious impulses and my examples of murdering theists, I will personally never hesitate to acknowledge any "dirt" committed under the pretext of atheism.  If there are any genuinely atheistic movements whose crimes are committed in the name of  atheism you will never see me make excuses for their behavior.  I have no need to run from truth.

2.) Apparently the religious impulse is beginning to wane among western civilizations. The practice of Christianity is virtually dead in England, and has greatly declined among the Scandinavian countries, as well as parts of Europe. The byproduct of that waning god-belief is that the growing atheist movement is gathering momentum and filling the void.

The result is that the atheist community is now free to come out of the shadows of society to an ever more public presence that cannot be ignored.

The existence of this atheist forum that you participate in is further verification of that growing influence.

We are now represented in the public forum, our numbers are growing, and we have a viable political presence.  That can only be good for atheism.  The result is that the cultural monopoly that theists have enjoyed will be eventually destroyed.

Oh OK. So you were just trying to drive the point home, as it were, then, right?

That makes sense.

So, from this and your earlier posts, I take it that you cannot accept a materialistic view because it has no ultimate meaning for life. Am I correct?

And based upon the available evidence, how many more times do you estimate that you will have to repeat yourself before we atheists suddenly relent ?  Had any success so far ?

And you're a clothing pattern associated with Birkenstock sandals, cheap incense, unkempt armpits, and a disproportionate sense of social relevance.

And I'm a Sumerian death ship.

Oh, and all of your arguments have been a complete, unmitigated failure; and I'm still waiting for you to admit your recovering-fundy status.

Ooooooooo, such venom !!!   It's nice to know that I really got under your skin. What's the matter, getting frustrated ?

( ....I see you are in the habit of writing concession speeches for your opponents;  tsk tsk, is that the only way you can achieve your "victory" ? )

.

Conceded? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Perhaps my life is 'ultimately' meaningless and pointless. So what? While I live, my life is meaningful to me. When I stop living... I won't care! Meaning only has value in subjective terms. My life, "ultimately", needs only have meaning to me. What puzzles me is why you seem to think this is some kind of weakness in the atheistic viewpoint, why you get so worked up over the idea that for us to find value and worth in our lives, we don't need them to have some eternal purpose beyond that simple endeavor of having value and worth for us.

Why does that idea twist your knickers so badly? Why do you seem so deeply outraged and offended that I don't need the "ultimate purpose" you're pushing? Or that Prozac doesn't? I find my fulfillment here. You find it in the idea of a loving god, who provided you with a world and a life... that you spit upon, denounce as not worthwhile on its own merits, and then turn back to that loving provider and demand more from.

Frankly, I still say that's damned obnoxious and the actions of an arrogant ingrate, but hey, if spitting in the face of your god and telling him he didn't do a good enough job for your satisfaction is what makes you feel good about yourself, have fun with it.

Ad hominem attacks do not qualify as a valid argument.

How do you know? Do you have the scientific means to determine this?

Actually, tantric mysticism is specifically concerned with sublimating the sexual energy ("kundalini" in Sanskrit). And quite honestly, the orgasm of the lower sexual chakra pales in comparison with the higher ones. But now I am digressing.

God is forever extending His Self. Such is the nature of love.

I have failed to address this? Okay. I will address it now: "God is." Questions?

What's the "physical" explanation for two separate minds becoming one?

A paradox is that which appears to be self-contradictory but actually reveals a basic truth.

The religious mind understands that faith is required to reconcile that which defies logic (namely, the apparent duality of the phenomenal world).

God is the conscious-awareness of all truth relations. Without presupposing this, there would be no rational basis to embark on a journey for the absolute truth. And as we have already established, your brand of "rationality" belies its intellectual basis and this is why it is ultimately incapable of making sense of the world.  

Are you really so desperate you have to reframe what are obviously just insults toward you as arguments? You've presented 30+ pages of uninterrupted twaddle so inane even your nominal peers (panentheists) have thrown their hands up in disgust.

Are you ready to admit to being a former or current born again yet?

Your failure to acknowledge that you have basic beliefs or convictions displays a flagrant disregard for intellectual honesty. As such, you forfeit your right to participate in this or any other rational discussion. 

Agreed.  Which is why you will not find an ad hominem in the preceding quote.  All you will find is a clear (and accurate) critique of your duplicity in regard to the use of non sequitur.

How do I know this?  Intuition!¹

Do you possibly use vaseline or coconut oil to reinforce your god-belief?

...with coconut oil?

god is forever not existing.  Such is the nature of non-existence.

Actually, god isn't. Questions? 

(don't dodge, or don't post.)

Schizophrenia.  That's the physical -- and rational -- explanation.

Then what you've got is even less than a paradox.  You're just self-contradictory...with no truth, basic or otherwise.

Agreed.  The religious mind requires faith to believe in the illogical.   You've just demonstrated your belief in god is illogical.  Which means you have just fixed your own belief in god.  Congratulations, my long lost atheist brother.

"All truth relations?"  What is the "conscious-awareness" of

1. x = x

2. x = y → y = x

3. x = y ^ y = z → x = z

Presupposition is irrational, especially when that which is presupposed is false (such as god's existence).

When did we establish this?  When you acknowledged that your belief in god was nothing more than "wishful thinking"?  Is "wishful thinking" the "intellectual basis" for "making sense of the world"?

Paisley, your belief in god has been fixed.  You're welcome.

You've been responded to way more than you merit by folks like Nigel, Eloise, Will, etc., so don't cop out with this nonsense.

I was simply responding to the assertion of "HisWillness" that....

Are you seriously arguing that Eugene Wigner has a "complete and utter disconnect with quantum theory?"

By the way, "interpretations" are not scientific theories. So, there would be no reason to publish it in a scientific journal.