Where is the Creator?

[guillaumeb]

I found the Creator at Stonehenge, looking at the stones and feeling the spirituality.

I found the Creator in a barrow tomb in Ireland.

I found the Creator at Salisbury Cathedral, walking in a structure that is 800 years old. The huge columns, the fantastic decoration, the carving in wood and stone, the stained glass, all a testament to faith.

I found the Creator when my wife and I attended the Passion Play at Oberammergau in 1984, attending the 350th anniversary of the play.

I found the Creator in a synagogue in Chicago.

I found the Creator at Loyola, even as my understanding evolved.

I found the Creator in the church where I married my wife 38 years ago.

I found the Creator in a mosque in my area.

I will admit that I have no scientific proof, no DNA, no fingerprints, no photographs. Just faith.

And you?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. You really ought to seek help for your hallucinations.

[yallerdawg]

43. This is a safe haven and protected group.

"A group for Christians and Christian-friendly persons who would like to have an open discussion about our faith and its role in the world around us. Our group will provide a safe haven for discussion and support, and find ways to express our beliefs in positive, non-threatening ways."

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

61. Ahhh, but guillaumeb's post was clearly one

by someone who is quite delusional.

[yallerdawg]

62. DU Terms of Service

No personal attacks or flaming

Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.


Just sayin...

[Comatose Sphagetti]

2. No, you found humility.

NT

[guillaumeb]

4. I am still looking for that.

[demigoddess]

3. I look for the Creator in people and every time I have gone to church

I have been mightily disappointed.

In one church a man threatened to kill a woman.
In another church the whole sermon was a rant about politics, a bad one.
In another church small children were told that God says it is okay if parents kill their children.

[guillaumeb]

6. I look for the Creator in creation,

and in the many ways that humans search for the Creator. But when dealing with humans, I do not expect to find perfection, and I am never disappointed.

If any expect perfection, they will always be disappointed.

[AJT]

5. It is lovely that your faith is grounded in love and compassion.

I lost my faith in the 80s when the "moral majority" came on the scene.

[guillaumeb]

7. Perhaps you can find it again.

Find the good, and there is so much good to find, while understanding that there is also violence and greed.

[Eko]

8. What did it look like?

[guillaumeb]

10. I feel that the Creator is reflected in the creation.

But I understand, and hope that others understand, that this is my personal view.

What would you expect a creator to look like?

[Eko]

13. I figured since you found him you could let us know

what the creator looks like, since you expect us non-theists to know. Did you use a mirror or something to see it?

[guillaumeb]

19. No, you must find the Creator for yourself.

Or not. I can only describe my own journey.

[Eko]

22. Didnt you say this?

"if they have no idea what the Creator looks like, or what form the Creator takes, they have no idea how to look, or what to look for."
Since you cant give us an idea of what the Creator looks like or what form it takes and you have seen it multiple times I have to assume you have no idea of how to look or what to look for.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. Trust me, he's delusional.

And apparently has hallucinations.

[Eko]

33. Seems that way.

[guillaumeb]

46. You missed the point of the post.

[Eko]

51. You mean the point

That since since we cant see this invisible dude that you claim to have found and cant describe what he looks like we don't even know what we are looking for. That point?

[guillaumeb]

53. What are you looking for?

And what makes you think that you would know what to look for in the search for the Creator?

[Eko]

57. That question

goes right back at you? How do you know you found the creator? What makes you think that you would know what to look for?

[guillaumeb]

59. My faith tells me that I found the path.

And you? Where did you look, and what did you look for?

[Eko]

60. Your faith.

faith:strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof
I looked everywhere and found no proof at all.

[guillaumeb]

63. Looking for proof is to misunderstand faith.

[Eko]

64. You asked me where I looked and how I looked.

"And you? Where did you look, and what did you look for?"
This was my response. "I looked everywhere and found no proof at all. "
And this is your answer. "Looking for proof is to misunderstand faith."

I wasn't looking for faith, I was looking for the creator.

[guillaumeb]

65. I understand.

But faith is a belief without proof.

Some believe that there are no gods, also without proof, because the matter is unprovable.

[Eko]

66. So I should believe something

with no proof, because why?

[guillaumeb]

67. Is everything that you believe provable?

[Eko]

68. Yup, to a reasonable degree.

[guillaumeb]

69. Do you believe in love?

[Eko]

70. Wow, you got me.

Not. Do I believe humans experience emotion? Yes. This has been studied, recorded, even caused on purpose to see the results. There is proof that humans experience emotions, including love.

[guillaumeb]

72. What is love?

There is proof that humans react to certain stimuli.

[Eko]

73. Love is an emotion that humans,

and possibly animals experience.

[guillaumeb]

74. How does love differ from self-interest?

[Eko]

75. Because there are people all across the world

that love someone even when the majority religion will ostracize, cast out, make laws against and even kill them for it. Can it be self interest, sure, does it have to be, absolutely not.

[guillaumeb]

78. Love and self-interest are inseparable.

You cannot prove to another that what you feel for another is either one or the other. But if you say that you love someone I would take it on faith that you are speaking truly.

[Eko]

80. Of course it is,

especially if you face death for it.

[Doodley]

87. When one loves so much that one gives up one's life, is that self-interest?

[guillaumeb]

89. It could be group interest.

Sacrificing one for the group in order that the group continues.

[Eko]

100. Group interest is not the same thing as self interest.

Unless group and self mean the same thing.

[guillaumeb]

128. It is related. The self is part of a larger group.

[Eko]

129. Group does not in any way equal self.

Wow, surprised I have to argue this basic difference in a definition. Group= many, self=one. Get a grip buddy.

[guillaumeb]

130. A group cannot exist without more than one self.

Speaking of basic. And the concept of sacrificing for group survival is common to non-human animals as well.

One example:

It is a remarkable social contract between these animals, and one could ask the question as to why would an individual put its life at risk on sentry duty by climbing a dead tree and so making themselves an easier target to an attack?

http://4elements.co.za/meerkats-sacrifice-survival/

[Eko]

132. But a self can exist without a group.

At this point you are making arguments that no one except yourself is bringing up. For no reason at all. Its almost as if you are reaching for something that you cant quite get. Whatever, its predictable.

[guillaumeb]

133. A self can exist for a time,

but that is all.

[Eko]

134. A group can exist for only a time also.

[Eko]

131. The fact that I have to explain the difference

between group and self and you equate them as the same is absolutely amazing. Even I am surprised as to the lengths you will go to try to prove your views.

[Eko]

77. There can be multiple emotions also,

ever heard of a love-hate relationship?

[guillaumeb]

81. Indeed.

But proving that emotion exists is another matter. Perhaps we are merely reacting to outside stimuli.

[Eko]

84. Emotions are a feeling that humans experience.

For pretty much the entire populace bar a few people. It's observable, testable, its a fact that humans experience emotion. Are you arguing they don't exist? Now proving love is love, since it is a personal thing, is impossible, I never said that. I just said that love is an emotion and they exist. People can have all kinds of crazy emotions, like think something is there when it is not, that doesnt make the emotion false just the premise that something is there is false. The emotion, since it is a feeling, is true as a feeling, the love itself may not be true as is shown by people getting divorced.

[guillaumeb]

86. And people believe that love exists.

But can we measure love, and differentiate between love and self-interest?

[Eko]

92. We have gone over this,

lets try again.
Love is an emotion.
Emotions are observable, testable.
Emotions exist.
Does that mean that love is real?
As far as it being an emotion yes.
Does that mean love is real?
No, it is an emotion. An emotion is a feeling, nothing more, nothing less.
I feel like you might be closed off to anything that threatens your beliefs.
Is that real?
No.
Its what I feel.
And that would be another emotion.

[guillaumeb]

93. Reactions to stimuli and situations are observable.

But proving that a reaction is based on one feeling or another is not.

[Eko]

98. No, it is.

When people report the same emotion they display the same features, their faces react the same way. Their glands and temperature react the same way, they react in the same general way. The reactions are provable to the described emotion.

[Doodley]

116. You assume a lot. How do you know that you aren't the only one who feels emotions, and everyone

else simulates emotion, like actors in the Truman Show? Where is your proof, or have you taken a leap of faith?

[Eko]

123. Yes, billions of people throughout history are lying.

But millions who profess to see god are not. lol.

[Doodley]

83. What proof do you personally have for most of what you believe? I would hazard at a guess that

it is not much if you are like the rest of us. We take a leap to trust our sources of information and our own senses.

[guillaumeb]

90. Well said.

[Eko]

96. If you could be specific I could answer your question.

Science is my proof, that thing that stops your car when you hit the brakes, heats and cools your home, treats you when you are sick, runs power plants, I could keep going.

[Doodley]

102. Science is your proof? Have you personally conducted the scientific experiments and taken the

scientific measurements, or do you place your faith in scientists and those who report the science?

[Eko]

103. Yes,

I took a wheel, mounted it to my workbench, spun it, applied something abrasive like sandpaper to the side of the wheel, and it slowed down!!!! If I pressed harder it would just stop!!!! It was amazing!!!!.

[Doodley]

109. Is that the extent of your personal scientific experiments and observations that form your belief

in all aspects of science? Let's talk about quantum physics or astrophysics. Did you carry out your own observations and develop your own theories, or do you believe in things based on what the scientific community have to say?

[Eko]

110. Be specific and I can answer.

[Eko]

113. I checked the speed of light this way

and so can you.

[Eko]

105. For heating I turned on my propane heater.

checked the temperature in the house, it was at 62, an hour after running the heater it was at 71. Hard to believe isnt it? I can take some pics for you if you require them.

[Doodley]

111. Turning on a heater isn't a scientific experiment, is it? How was propane formed? Do you know?

I suggest that if you think you know, it could only be based on a leap of faith to believe the sources of information that you use.

[Eko]

115. Of course it is,

You didn't ask me how the wheel was made or the sandpaper, I can educate you if you like but be specific on which one please.

[Eko]

118. Just so I know where to start

should we start with elementary grade science, high school science, or,,,,,,Im thinking if I need to explain where propane comes from maybe elementary.

[Doodley]

119. Start by explaining quantum mechanics and how you know all about it without taking a leap of

faith into believing what you are told.

[Eko]

122. How about I start with propane and

propane related accessories since that seems to be a problem for you. It might be a hill you can climb.

[Eko]

124. Propane.

Propane is a three-carbon alkane with the molecular formula C3H8. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, but compressible to a transportable liquid. A by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum refining, it is commonly used as a fuel. Propane is one of a group of liquefied petroleum gases (LP gases). The others include butane, propylene, butadiene, butylene, isobutylene, and mixtures thereof.

[Eko]

125. Propane

Propane was discovered by the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot in 1857.[5] It was first identified as a volatile component in gasoline by Walter O. Snelling of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1910. Although the compound was known long before this, Snelling's work was the beginning of the propane industry in the United States. The volatility of these lighter hydrocarbons caused them to be known as "wild" because of the high vapor pressures of unrefined gasoline. On March 31, the New York Times reported on Snelling's work with liquefied gas, saying "a steel bottle will carry enough gas to light an ordinary home for three weeks".

[Eko]

126. Propane.

The burning of propane is a combustion reaction because a molecule that consists of Carbon and Hydrogen react with oxygen and the products are carbon dioxide and water.
The Ration and why it is important
The ratio for this chemical reaction is 1 mole of propane reacts with 5 moles of oxygen which are the reactants and they produce 4 moles of water, 3 moles of carbon dioxide and energy as products.

[Doodley]

136. Okay, start with propane. Can you explain how propane is formed and how you know it is formed

without putting your belief in what others have said.

[Eko]

137. This is how propane is formed.

"Propane is produced as a by-product of two other processes, natural gas processing and petroleum refining. The processing of natural gas involves removal of butane, propane, and large amounts of ethane from the raw gas, in order to prevent condensation of these volatiles in natural gas pipelines. Additionally, oil refineries produce some propane as a by-product of cracking petroleum into gasoline or heating oil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
As for your second question, no, I have never made it myself, it would be illegal unless I was a School or a business. I understand the science behind it, science that has been checked what? Billions of times? Trillions? More? How to make it has a patent! When you patent how to make something it is continually checked by scientist across the world and if found to be true used as a stepping stone to prove other things, So if someone were to patent propane.2, they would have to first confirm the making of propane then converting it into propane .2. The new patent, and the old patent including all science would have to confirmed by repeatable, record able, testable, beyond all of a reasonable doubt true, science. There would be mountains of proof, that anyone could check running the same experiment over and over, and get the same results. If 100 people go to a church, what percentage are going to find god? Maybe 30% or less?, Lets be way generous, 60%? What percentage of people that do the experiment correctly in a proven scientific experiment get the right answer? at least 99.99%. No contest bro.

[Doodley]

138. You use Wikipedia, an online source that can be edited by anyone, to show your

understanding of science doesn't take any kind of leap of faith. What does that tell us?

[Eko]

139. Ok.

Propane is extracted from liquid components during natural gas processing. To remove propane from natural gas, hydrocarbons are fractionated and absorbed in oil, which is followed by adsorption to surface-active agents or refrigeration. Hydrocarbons such as butane and propane are removed from natural gas in part to prevent condensation in natural gas pipelines. Unprocessed natural gas consists of about 90 percent methane and only 5 percent propane, but about half of the propane used in the United States comes from natural gas processing. Propane is 270 times denser as a liquid than as a gas, and therefore the extracted propane is stored and transported as a liquid. Because propane is colorless and odorless, an odorant is added for detection.
https://sciencing.com/how-propane-made-4909713.html

[Eko]

140. And.

Propane is a naturally occurring gas composed of three carbon atoms and eight hydrogen atoms. It is created along with a variety of other hydrocarbons (such as crude oil, butane, and gasoline) by the decomposition and reaction of organic matter over long periods of time.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Propane.html#ixzz5BeNmk4iU

[Eko]

141. And from the US Government.

Propane is an energy-rich gas, C3H8. It is one of the liquefied petroleum gases (LP-gases or LPGs) that are found mixed with natural gas and oil. Propane and other liquefied gases, including ethane and butane, are separated from natural gas at natural gas processing plants, or from crude oil at refineries. The amount of propane produced from natural gas and from oil is roughly equal.

Propane naturally occurs as a gas. However, at higher pressure or lower temperatures, it becomes a liquid. Because propane is 270 times more compact as a liquid than as a gas, it is transported and stored in its liquid state. Propane becomes a gas again when a valve is opened to release it from its pressurized container. When returned to normal pressure, propane becomes a gas so that we can use it.
https://www.eia.gov/KIDS/energy.cfm?page=propane_home
Its an explanation for kids, lol.

[Eko]

127. Have you kept up so far or do I need to backtrack some and explain basic chemistry to you?

Please let me know so I can enlighten you if needed.

[Eko]

71. Sure thing.

Some believe that there is no Easter bunny, also without proof, because the matter is unprovable.

[Doodley]

104. To use your Easter Bunny analogy, when you see it, you will know you have found it.

[Eko]

106. Do you often see the easter bunny?

And know it to be a real thing and not an human construct?

[Doodley]

112. I usually only see it at Easter.

The one I see is made of chocolate.

[Eko]

114. Who makes that do you suppose?

[Doodley]

117. Why assume it has a maker? Maybe it has always been.

[Eko]

120. Do you have some record of the chocolate easter bunny that predates

the 1600's?

[Doodley]

85. Some of us cannot see things that others can. Take those magic eye pictures. If one man

cannot see an image by looking, it does not mean that another man cannot see it. If we cannot see it, we could try looking at it in a different way, or we could try to imagine what those who see it see.

[Eko]

88. I see you sending me $100.

If you cant see that then you should just send me $100 because obviously you are blind to it in some way and once you do it might become clear to you. PM me for the address!. Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

91. This should be in the humor section.

[Eko]

94. I'm being serious.

[guillaumeb]

95. Let me know if it works.

[Eko]

97. It hasnt so far.

But it has for so many people maybe it will for me also. I will call myself Eko Graham!!

[Doodley]

101. Can you give an example that isn't flippant or sarcasm?

[Eko]

107. An example of what?

[Eko]

108. Oh you mean of a autostereogram?

You do realize its a human made thing right?
And although Magic Eye puzzles were all the rage some 25 years ago, the idea has been used by scientists for decades to study depth perception.

There is that science thing again.
Here is the science behind it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3867880/Can-shark-Researchers-reveal-magic-eye-illusions-work-not-hidden-3D-images.html

[Eko]

23. And this,,,,

person that you can see but cant describe, that you cant tell us anything really about, do you see them often? Have a seat, be comfortable, this session will take a while.

[c-rational]

9. Question by George Carlin..in all seriousness "If God is All Powerful can he himself create a rock

so big he cannot lift it?" Answer after 40 years of thought...God is the rock too...courtesy of the theory of Non Duality, or the Unity Principle espoused by Emerson...when you see two you see falsely.

[guillaumeb]

11. Would you care to elaborate on this? eom

[c-rational]

12. The philosophy of Adwaita- The truth is one not dual...I do not believe you can find the Creator

anywhere out there...you are simply part of Creation.

[guillaumeb]

16. The American Friends say that each person has a spark of the Creator.

So, by this position, to deny the Creator is to deny oneself.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. Notice you start with assuming a Creator.

Then go looking for it. Rather than asking a more basic question, such as, Is it possible there is a Creator?

[msongs]

14. creators seems to love fear based exclusionary human created religions nt

[guillaumeb]

17. Alternatively,

humans often prefer a fear based and exclusionary religion. Part of tribalism, a survival mechanism. What the Creator prefers is another matter.

[standingtall]

15. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe without a creator

unless something existed apart from creation. No matter how many variables that that are used to explain away the existence of a creator at the end of the day something had to exist apart from creation. I don't get why there is so many hostile comments toward the op in a group that clearly states it's purpose is for Christians and Christian friendly members.

[guillaumeb]

18. There is some hostility,

but I think there is curiosity also.

[LakeArenal]

20. Even if, at the end of space, there was found a creator

Doesn’t mean it would be a divine being. Maybe it’s a computer program.

[standingtall]

21. I have never seen a computer program that did not have a creator

More logical to believe in a divine intelligent creator than an unconscious entity generating everything at random in my opinion.

[LakeArenal]

25. Well the creator of the program was a scientist or tech.

There may always (probably) be an answer that does not require divinity.

[standingtall]

36. The existence of a creator does not mean science is not useful

in fact the creator created beings with the capacity to study science. Like a scientist or tech creating an artificial intelligence like a computer program to do whatever it does.

[LakeArenal]

41. You and I surely dont agree.

I hope you find what you believe.

Either way, it’s a strange great trip. ☮️

[Binkie The Clown]

31. Then how did something so perfect and divine happen without a creator? So...

who or what created this creator of yours?

The standard Sunday school answer is "God always was and always will be." So what's wrong with saying "mass/energy always was and always will be?" If there is something that somehow always was, would that something be basic like mass/energy, or would it be some enormously complex, all-powerful conscious being? Clearly a super-being like god had to have had a creator. How else can you explain it? Did god just get created at random?

[standingtall]

35. God always existed he was not created and that should be the standard Sunday school answer

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2019, 12:31 AM - Edit history (3)

because that is what the bible teaches that God is everlasting which means no beginning and no ending. If mass/energy which has no conscious is the origin of all of creation which is enormously complex itself than everything would be an accident. God was not created nor could God be created because for God to be created that would take a being more powerful than God.

[Binkie The Clown]

37. The Bible was written by people who had no idea where the sun went when it sat.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider the ramblings of bronze age goat herders to be in any way authoritative.

"Because the Bible says so" has exactly the same value as "Because the Buddha said", or "Because the Bhagavad Gita says so." In other words, no value whatsoever.

Anything you say about your god, I can say about Shiva, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Thor. All I have to do is point to a different book for my "proof". What makes your book better than mine? Nothing. You may consider belief in Yamo-no-Kami, the Japanese Shinto mountain goddess, to be ridiculous, but in exactly what way is it any more ridiculous than your own favorite deity?

You believe in what you were raised to believe. If you had been born of Shinto parents you'd probably be kneeling at the shrine of Yamo-no-Kami. If you'd been born in ancient Greece, you'd have been a good and faithful worshiper of Zeus. Your deity of choice is an accident of birth and nothing more.

[standingtall]

38. Dont pretend like you no the motivations of my belief neither of my parents were religous

nor did they push me to go to church. You can say a lot of things about whatever god you wish and try to equate them to the Christian God and they have all been refuted countless times by Christian scholars and even secular scholars. Besides that the op only brought up the existence of a creator not which faith the creator was from. Belief in a creator is not exclusive to Christianity.

Furthermore this is not the main forum nor is this more broad religion
&spirituality group but this specifically the discussion group for Christian Liberals& Progessive people of faith sense you and many others on this thread seem to have trouble getting this. I will copy and paste this groups stated purpose.


"A group for Christians and Christian-friendly persons who would like to have an open discussion about our faith and its role in the world around us. Our group will provide a safe haven for discussion and support, and find ways to express our beliefs in positive, non-threatening ways."


The purpose of this group is to to provide Christians and Christian friendly members a safe haven for discussing their faith not to be a debating forum between believers and none believers. I don't mind engaging in discussions with non believers here, but keep it respectful. You should not assume you know someones background nor is it proper to describe the writing of the bible as the ramblings of bronze age goat herders. Ancient people were a lot more intelligent than you give them credit for.

[Binkie The Clown]

39. Sorry. I'll stay out of your bubble then.

and for the record "refuted countless times" is pretty vague without actual references and citations.


And for the record "open discussion" includes questioning the basis of your beliefs, not simply assuming your'e correct and preaching to the choir.

[standingtall]

40. I did not want to get into citiatons because that would likely become a never ending circle

The meaning of "open discussion" like any other word or phrase is determined by it's context. The groups stated purpose uses it to pertain to discussions between Christian and Christian friendly members which usually means differences in doctrine.There is no Christian doctrine that does not except the existence of a creator and it would hard to argue that there could be a Christian friendly doctrine which denies a creator.

Although I will defend Christian beliefs I do not preach nor do I go out of my way to attempt to convert people. My doctrine is unless God opens someone eyes first it does not matter how persuasive an argument I make it will not be recieved.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. Uhhhh, science does not worry about explaining the origin of the universe.

It doesn't concern itself with a creator. It prefers to stick with what it can know and observe.

Unlike those who assume a creator.

[sprinkleeninow]

24. Guillaume,

mon frère.

I have experienced The Creator in sisters and brothers of humanity when they give of themselves selflessly to another.

It is Godly and most honorable in 'laying down/aside your life for your brother/sister'.

💜

[guillaumeb]

50. Exactly.

And atheists are also among those who give of themselves. No matter the reason, that giving is an inspiring thing.

[sprinkleeninow]

58. Yes, they do.

Selflessness, compassion and humility I reckon are in short supply these days. It will continue with this maladministration unless tables are turned on it.

When I do the right act against my 'flesh' nature, I picture the heavenly hosts hand-clap, whistle and give one another high fives! 😊

[democratisphere]

28. Throughout all lands, air, seas and the cosmos.

[Binkie The Clown]

30. I found the creator reading "The Blind Watchermaker" by Dawkins. nt

[TomSlick]

32. Thanks for the posting.

It is not surprising that the Creator is found in humility.

I admire your willingness to endure the flaming responses of those who are certain that their lack of faith proves their superior intelligence. The arrogance of certainty is a dangerous thing.

[LakeArenal]

34. Your response is the most flaming.

I see no endurance required to read these comments. The arrogance in the certainty of god a dangerous thing? Oh you mean in non believers. Superior intelligence? WTH?

[TomSlick]

42. I am constantly amazed at the posts on DU,

supposedly from liberal accepting people who seem to take great pride in questioning the intelligence of people of faith. They know there is no creator and that people who believe are delusional. I believe in a creator but do not question the mental stability or intelligence of those who do not.

I believe in a creator but cannot know. Others believe there is no creator but cannot know. To claim to know - either way - is arrogance.

The attacks on the intelligence or mental stability of believers is detrimental to what should be our common goal. People who are searching for opinions on political issues or just the news sometimes stumble on DU - that's how I found it. When visitors to DU see these attacks on faith, it confirms the stereotype that Democrats are anti-religion.

We liberal folk cannot afford to run off anyone because their belief concerning the unprovable is different than our own. The Republic is in peril. We ought not be discouraging allies.

[LakeArenal]

44. huh?

You are the one who brought up intelligence.

"I admire your willingness to endure the flaming responses of those who are certain that their lack of faith proves their superior intelligence. The arrogance of certainty is a dangerous thing. "

No one was flaming anyone except you. I don't see anyone who feels they have superior intelligence.

[TomSlick]

45. Please see,

Posts 1, 13, 26, 33, 23, 9, 14, 37, supra.

[guillaumeb]

47. Well, except for those particular points.

Nice replies, but you are speaking to those who are quite certain.

[LakeArenal]

48. Im happy you are so.

So am I. I thought the topic was open for discussion. With respect to your group being “religion”, I will bow out. I respect people of faith, my parents and in-laws were. I don’t want to bog down your thread.

Peace out.

[guillaumeb]

49. I have no issue with you being here.

I found your points to be interesting.

Peace to you also.

[guillaumeb]

82. Very well put.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

52. The creator, or creation, is not to be found in the sky, the creator is found within yourself.

[guillaumeb]

54. The Creator is found in the creation.

And you and I, being a part of the creation....................

[Jack-o-Lantern]

55. I dont know why atheists cant accept the beliefs of agnostics or people of faith.

Why the animosity? Why the sarcasm? Why not accept that each person has made his own discoveries on the path of life?

[guillaumeb]

56. I think that most actually do.

But it might be that a lot of what we read here is simply venting in a neutral space.

[Doodley]

99. By the same token, I don't know why the Christian Right help elect Trump. Atheists aren't anymore

likely to be self-righteous than people of belief. In fact they are despised, according to opinion polls.

[standingtall]

135. There are many who attach themselves to a community or a movement that simply

attaches itself to a profession of faith in Christ, but genuine faith in Christ is being in Christ which is a totally different thing.

[applegrove]

76. In the start of atoms is my best guess. And in the start of the space in between.

[guillaumeb]

79. I would add: in every part of the creation.

The Creator cannot exist apart from the creation.

[unblock]

121. Creator is still working reluctantly in Sirius black's house, I believe