<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Foxhole Atheism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://foxholeatheism.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://foxholeatheism.com</link>
	<description>a blog for freethinkers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 20:07:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Many Worlds and Ultimate Justice by Mike</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/many-worlds-and-ultimate-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-10853</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 20:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/many-worlds-and-ultimate-justice/#comment-10853</guid>
		<description>James,

The only thing there that seems worthy of a response is your claim that MW is a hypothesis motivated by trying to avoid God. That&#039;s incorrect. The MW hypothesis is entailed by a number of theories. If one of those theories are correct, then there is probably some sort of multiverse, whether it be parallel dimensions, an inflationary expanding multiverse, etc. MW hypotheses may be used by some today as a counter argument to some theistic claims, but it was not their motivation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James,</p>
<p>The only thing there that seems worthy of a response is your claim that MW is a hypothesis motivated by trying to avoid God. That&#8217;s incorrect. The MW hypothesis is entailed by a number of theories. If one of those theories are correct, then there is probably some sort of multiverse, whether it be parallel dimensions, an inflationary expanding multiverse, etc. MW hypotheses may be used by some today as a counter argument to some theistic claims, but it was not their motivation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Free Will and Evil by James</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/free-will-and-evil/comment-page-2/#comment-10806</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 09:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=589#comment-10806</guid>
		<description>Sounds like semantics to me.

I think the issues are quite simple. God gave us the ability to think anything we want within the parameters of our intelligence. With this ability--NEW beings can work through what they want to be. I firmly believe that when I go to heaven the ability to think anything I want will be given up. I have prayed this exact prayer before. I dont want the ability to think contrary to God&#039;s will. Its unpleasant. To many..its not..they love it....they lust for it...it makes them feel good. In short...they&#039;re evil and Im not. Not because I dont ever sin..but because I want this ability taken away from me.
I think people like to get all &quot;pen to paper&quot; with this topic and they miss the point by getting all modal about it.

The sad fact is, the atheist not only has Zero freewill(as mind cant move matter) but their opinions are no more useful than a clump of dust in a nearby nebula. How they can suggest that whats colliding in their brain is anymore their own than whats colliding in the nebula defies all reason.

These logic defying gymnastics dont even begin to square with reality and is the price that must be paid when the mind rejects its Creator. How utterly incoherent it is. When people started thinking their equations *defined reality instead of realizing math exists to allow us to Use our world even Einstein became as autistic as most of the myopic nerds who now dominate the fields of Origins. The reason why the &quot;Norm&quot;  believes in God and the &quot;Norm&quot; believes in freewill is because they see the forest while the nerds stare at the tree.
BTW..I actually chose every word, precisely, that I just wrote. I moved matter and directed molecules with my will. If anyone believes they cant do the same then why speak at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like semantics to me.</p>
<p>I think the issues are quite simple. God gave us the ability to think anything we want within the parameters of our intelligence. With this ability&#8211;NEW beings can work through what they want to be. I firmly believe that when I go to heaven the ability to think anything I want will be given up. I have prayed this exact prayer before. I dont want the ability to think contrary to God&#8217;s will. Its unpleasant. To many..its not..they love it&#8230;.they lust for it&#8230;it makes them feel good. In short&#8230;they&#8217;re evil and Im not. Not because I dont ever sin..but because I want this ability taken away from me.<br />
I think people like to get all &#8220;pen to paper&#8221; with this topic and they miss the point by getting all modal about it.</p>
<p>The sad fact is, the atheist not only has Zero freewill(as mind cant move matter) but their opinions are no more useful than a clump of dust in a nearby nebula. How they can suggest that whats colliding in their brain is anymore their own than whats colliding in the nebula defies all reason.</p>
<p>These logic defying gymnastics dont even begin to square with reality and is the price that must be paid when the mind rejects its Creator. How utterly incoherent it is. When people started thinking their equations *defined reality instead of realizing math exists to allow us to Use our world even Einstein became as autistic as most of the myopic nerds who now dominate the fields of Origins. The reason why the &#8220;Norm&#8221;  believes in God and the &#8220;Norm&#8221; believes in freewill is because they see the forest while the nerds stare at the tree.<br />
BTW..I actually chose every word, precisely, that I just wrote. I moved matter and directed molecules with my will. If anyone believes they cant do the same then why speak at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is Hell simply separation from God? by James</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-hell-simply-separation-from-god/comment-page-1/#comment-10804</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 08:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=508#comment-10804</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that all descriptions of Hell are metaphorical. For instance we dont actually think Heaven is actually paved with streets of Gold...but we we do understand there will be no suffering, no pain, and eternal goodness.
One passage says &quot;outer darkness&quot; and &quot;shut out from the presence of the Lord&quot;.
I think what many people dont consider is that if the presence of god&#039;s influence was removed from this world we&#039;d probably all be dead. Ever wonder how it could be that no nuclear bomb has been used since 1945? Seems highly unlikely. Ever wonder how a world and its conscious brains, that are suppose to be random collections of particle groupings, have established Justice systems in every single solitary culture in the world?

Evolutionarily speaking--how can that make any sense with all the other random possibilities that could have been? We see what happens when these systems are removed for a short time. It may be that hell is simply a world with God;s influence completely withheld so those humans who rejected the God who gave them existence and everything else receive what they believe they wanted. It may be that when his presence is removed that defiance will be forever set in stone because without God&#039;s pull...any inkling or contemplation of God will be gone. As they say...the doors to hell are looked from the inside. 

But it would be a mistake to think there is actually a place &quot;located&quot; outside God. As we sustain the dream world every night..God sustains all reality. The saying goes if God wanted you dead he need not drop a stone on your head..he can simply stop thinking of you. We all must have a place in God&#039;s thought. Him being the only one who truly exists. I think, for many, God is too small. They somehow imagine him as having his mind &quot;constructed &quot; like ours instead of being the grounding of Thought itself--the foundation upon which all reality must sit upon. They see god as being In the world or adjacent to it. As Paul says..We live, move and have our being IN God.

I think the words of Christ are the power that identifies those who are *For God and who are against God. The real God...not some individuals dream of who god is. In other words we dont get to make our own God. The ones who accept the real God turn to him through Christs beautiful words, deeds, and life. Those who are unmoved by the power of that message are left, without coercion, to reveal themselves. Hell is not a threat..its simply a statement of fact of where unbelievers go. Think, if it were a threat..logic would say that humans would follow the devil into heaven to avoid punishment.

By allowing a balance of doubt and proof through creation, testimony and a simple act of turning to God so he can reveal to your mind that Christ was exactly who he said he was(its a fact in my mind now)---we are left with only those who want to search for God and leave everyone else who is unmoved by the Gospel to just say its all a fairy tale. I know of not a single real christian who turned to God out of fear of hell. There simply is not enough evidence to justify that fear--thats why no one is coerced. There is plenty of logic that shows there is a Creator--but Who that creator IS only comes when God puts it in your mind as a fact. The faith is moving to God and believing he does what is right by knowing the heart of Christ through his message...love your enemies.

I personally believe God will not leave a single person who desires the love Christ demonstrated in darkness. So somehow, someway, it is completely and solely on those who reject Him. I also believe the Bible leaves room for God to love those who are not only his enemies..but wont even acknowledge He exists.
I dont see how this would be done as coercion comes into play once God is fully revealed. But I pray no one suffers and Christ also prayed to the father to forgive those who killed him. I think the problem modern man has is he has heard the power of Christs message more than any other generation and those who have never heard--unless they were placed before Christ lifetime by Gods foreknowledge of their denial of him in any era--may also have some provision made for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that all descriptions of Hell are metaphorical. For instance we dont actually think Heaven is actually paved with streets of Gold&#8230;but we we do understand there will be no suffering, no pain, and eternal goodness.<br />
One passage says &#8220;outer darkness&#8221; and &#8220;shut out from the presence of the Lord&#8221;.<br />
I think what many people dont consider is that if the presence of god&#8217;s influence was removed from this world we&#8217;d probably all be dead. Ever wonder how it could be that no nuclear bomb has been used since 1945? Seems highly unlikely. Ever wonder how a world and its conscious brains, that are suppose to be random collections of particle groupings, have established Justice systems in every single solitary culture in the world?</p>
<p>Evolutionarily speaking&#8211;how can that make any sense with all the other random possibilities that could have been? We see what happens when these systems are removed for a short time. It may be that hell is simply a world with God;s influence completely withheld so those humans who rejected the God who gave them existence and everything else receive what they believe they wanted. It may be that when his presence is removed that defiance will be forever set in stone because without God&#8217;s pull&#8230;any inkling or contemplation of God will be gone. As they say&#8230;the doors to hell are looked from the inside. </p>
<p>But it would be a mistake to think there is actually a place &#8220;located&#8221; outside God. As we sustain the dream world every night..God sustains all reality. The saying goes if God wanted you dead he need not drop a stone on your head..he can simply stop thinking of you. We all must have a place in God&#8217;s thought. Him being the only one who truly exists. I think, for many, God is too small. They somehow imagine him as having his mind &#8220;constructed &#8221; like ours instead of being the grounding of Thought itself&#8211;the foundation upon which all reality must sit upon. They see god as being In the world or adjacent to it. As Paul says..We live, move and have our being IN God.</p>
<p>I think the words of Christ are the power that identifies those who are *For God and who are against God. The real God&#8230;not some individuals dream of who god is. In other words we dont get to make our own God. The ones who accept the real God turn to him through Christs beautiful words, deeds, and life. Those who are unmoved by the power of that message are left, without coercion, to reveal themselves. Hell is not a threat..its simply a statement of fact of where unbelievers go. Think, if it were a threat..logic would say that humans would follow the devil into heaven to avoid punishment.</p>
<p>By allowing a balance of doubt and proof through creation, testimony and a simple act of turning to God so he can reveal to your mind that Christ was exactly who he said he was(its a fact in my mind now)&#8212;we are left with only those who want to search for God and leave everyone else who is unmoved by the Gospel to just say its all a fairy tale. I know of not a single real christian who turned to God out of fear of hell. There simply is not enough evidence to justify that fear&#8211;thats why no one is coerced. There is plenty of logic that shows there is a Creator&#8211;but Who that creator IS only comes when God puts it in your mind as a fact. The faith is moving to God and believing he does what is right by knowing the heart of Christ through his message&#8230;love your enemies.</p>
<p>I personally believe God will not leave a single person who desires the love Christ demonstrated in darkness. So somehow, someway, it is completely and solely on those who reject Him. I also believe the Bible leaves room for God to love those who are not only his enemies..but wont even acknowledge He exists.<br />
I dont see how this would be done as coercion comes into play once God is fully revealed. But I pray no one suffers and Christ also prayed to the father to forgive those who killed him. I think the problem modern man has is he has heard the power of Christs message more than any other generation and those who have never heard&#8211;unless they were placed before Christ lifetime by Gods foreknowledge of their denial of him in any era&#8211;may also have some provision made for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Many Worlds and Ultimate Justice by James</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/many-worlds-and-ultimate-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-10802</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/many-worlds-and-ultimate-justice/#comment-10802</guid>
		<description>First, it seems to me that Many worlds underlying motivation is an attempt to explain design without God. You&#039;ll notice atheists jumping all over it, agnostic scientists more skeptical of it and theists laughing at  the absurdities it produces.


But most importantly..God is not using the scales of justice so often seen in other religions and movies. People dont redeem themselves. There is an immovable weight on the sin side of the scale that can only be lifted through mercy. Not a single good deed can impact the scale. The only sin that cant be forgiven is the sin of unbelief. As Paul said...if we could be saved through deeds than Christ died for nothing.  God made it as easy as can be. Turn to him and ask for forgiveness through Christ and he will reveal Christ to your mind so you will know without doubt that He Is --and that you are now his child. 

But as far as hells percentages. Think about  the essence of the Son of God becoming an actual man. Could he have sinned? No, God cannot sin no matter the circumstances. It may be that our essence is what it is and also cannot reject Christ&#039;s offer no matter if we were American, dutch, or African and regardless of what era we were born in..
We dont know how God creates our soul. It may be that we are out in the best possible circumstances not only for us to turn to him but also the combinations of our actions intermingled with others. The web of possibilities and interactions are incalculable to us but not to God. I think part of faith is understanding God does not make mistakes and no one is lost that would have turned to Christ in some other circumstance. If its not like that then God must have good reasons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, it seems to me that Many worlds underlying motivation is an attempt to explain design without God. You&#8217;ll notice atheists jumping all over it, agnostic scientists more skeptical of it and theists laughing at  the absurdities it produces.</p>
<p>But most importantly..God is not using the scales of justice so often seen in other religions and movies. People dont redeem themselves. There is an immovable weight on the sin side of the scale that can only be lifted through mercy. Not a single good deed can impact the scale. The only sin that cant be forgiven is the sin of unbelief. As Paul said&#8230;if we could be saved through deeds than Christ died for nothing.  God made it as easy as can be. Turn to him and ask for forgiveness through Christ and he will reveal Christ to your mind so you will know without doubt that He Is &#8211;and that you are now his child. </p>
<p>But as far as hells percentages. Think about  the essence of the Son of God becoming an actual man. Could he have sinned? No, God cannot sin no matter the circumstances. It may be that our essence is what it is and also cannot reject Christ&#8217;s offer no matter if we were American, dutch, or African and regardless of what era we were born in..<br />
We dont know how God creates our soul. It may be that we are out in the best possible circumstances not only for us to turn to him but also the combinations of our actions intermingled with others. The web of possibilities and interactions are incalculable to us but not to God. I think part of faith is understanding God does not make mistakes and no one is lost that would have turned to Christ in some other circumstance. If its not like that then God must have good reasons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is naturalism a type of faith? by News!</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-naturalism-a-type-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-10752</link>
		<dc:creator>News!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 22:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=805#comment-10752</guid>
		<description>[...] from Foxhole Atheism has a post up titled Is Naturalism a Type of Faith?. As far as I can tell, it&#8217;s a more modest argument about methodological naturalism (science, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] from Foxhole Atheism has a post up titled Is Naturalism a Type of Faith?. As far as I can tell, it&#8217;s a more modest argument about methodological naturalism (science, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The first time I spoke in tongues by Lance M</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/the-first-time-i-spoke-in-tongues/comment-page-1/#comment-10659</link>
		<dc:creator>Lance M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=782#comment-10659</guid>
		<description>Mike, I am an AG pastor and I just feel compelled to tell you I&#039;m sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, I am an AG pastor and I just feel compelled to tell you I&#8217;m sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is naturalism a type of faith? by Mike</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-naturalism-a-type-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-10567</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 13:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=805#comment-10567</guid>
		<description>Thats correct. It does serve as a defense of doing science, history, etc. with an assumption of methodological naturalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thats correct. It does serve as a defense of doing science, history, etc. with an assumption of methodological naturalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is naturalism a type of faith? by Lee</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-naturalism-a-type-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-10550</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 17:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=805#comment-10550</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re talking about methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.  I misread you, my apologies!  Carry on :)

Cheers,

Lee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re talking about methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.  I misread you, my apologies!  Carry on <img src='http://foxholeatheism.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Lee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is naturalism a type of faith? by Mike</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-naturalism-a-type-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-10548</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 15:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=805#comment-10548</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment Lee.
 
I wonder if we are miscommunicating just a bit. When talking about naturalism, we could have the narrow form that I proposed that is probabilistically justified or we could have the idea that there are only such things as natural causes, which is less justified (though I still believe it).
 
The difference is subtle, but the latter is making a claim that requires proof and the former makes a claim that requires confirmation (past confirmation counts as it probabilistically predicts future confirmation). I’m not trying to justify the truth of a full scope naturalism in this post. As you said, that’s not really feasible. What I’m trying to say is due to the level of confirmation given to a narrow naturalism hypothesis in the past, we are probabilistically justified in assuming the level of confirmation will continue.
 
The only big assumptions going into it are these: 1) that probability can be a guide to whether belief in something is justified; 2) that we have in fact discovered natural explanations for a wide variety of things (not just from science but also from other “knowledge” producing areas like history); and 3) that we don’t have the same sort of results from non-natural claims about explanations. In fact, for 3, I’m saying there isn’t a single case of the kind of consensus knowledge present in saying something like “sneezes proceed from natural causes.”  If you agree with me on those three assumptions, then my conclusion should follow from Bayes’s Theorem as I’ve presented it.
 
Remember, though, it’s not about all out naturalism, but about saying for any given situation that is presented, you are justified in saying it probably has a natural explanation. So, when I’m told about the monk story (or I see the video Paul posted) I am justified in thinking it probably has a natural explanation just given what we know about the past. I’m not ruling anything out; I’m just saying this is probably true (overwhelmingly so!) and it doesn’t require a position of faith to make that claim because I’m making a probability claim that is in fact justified by the probability.
 
Does that clear things up or have I made it worse?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment Lee.<br />
 <br />
I wonder if we are miscommunicating just a bit. When talking about naturalism, we could have the narrow form that I proposed that is probabilistically justified or we could have the idea that there are only such things as natural causes, which is less justified (though I still believe it).<br />
 <br />
The difference is subtle, but the latter is making a claim that requires proof and the former makes a claim that requires confirmation (past confirmation counts as it probabilistically predicts future confirmation). I’m not trying to justify the truth of a full scope naturalism in this post. As you said, that’s not really feasible. What I’m trying to say is due to the level of confirmation given to a narrow naturalism hypothesis in the past, we are probabilistically justified in assuming the level of confirmation will continue.<br />
 <br />
The only big assumptions going into it are these: 1) that probability can be a guide to whether belief in something is justified; 2) that we have in fact discovered natural explanations for a wide variety of things (not just from science but also from other “knowledge” producing areas like history); and 3) that we don’t have the same sort of results from non-natural claims about explanations. In fact, for 3, I’m saying there isn’t a single case of the kind of consensus knowledge present in saying something like “sneezes proceed from natural causes.”  If you agree with me on those three assumptions, then my conclusion should follow from Bayes’s Theorem as I’ve presented it.<br />
 <br />
Remember, though, it’s not about all out naturalism, but about saying for any given situation that is presented, you are justified in saying it probably has a natural explanation. So, when I’m told about the monk story (or I see the video Paul posted) I am justified in thinking it probably has a natural explanation just given what we know about the past. I’m not ruling anything out; I’m just saying this is probably true (overwhelmingly so!) and it doesn’t require a position of faith to make that claim because I’m making a probability claim that is in fact justified by the probability.<br />
 <br />
Does that clear things up or have I made it worse?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is naturalism a type of faith? by Paul So</title>
		<link>http://foxholeatheism.com/is-naturalism-a-type-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-10500</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul So</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=805#comment-10500</guid>
		<description>There is a documentary on Buddhist Monk Levitating with a link below with a scene of a Buddhist Monk towards the end of the documentary &quot;levitating&quot;. I&#039;m not sure whether it&#039;s real or not but I hope you guys would at least see it. I personally think it&#039;s not &quot;magic&quot; but something else....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyrgcwziASA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a documentary on Buddhist Monk Levitating with a link below with a scene of a Buddhist Monk towards the end of the documentary &#8220;levitating&#8221;. I&#8217;m not sure whether it&#8217;s real or not but I hope you guys would at least see it. I personally think it&#8217;s not &#8220;magic&#8221; but something else&#8230;.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyrgcwziASA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyrgcwziASA</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 1.162 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-19 03:35:12 -->

