Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.

what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such?

generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable?

my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge.

in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me.

In the science religion, there are a few real and true laws. Three of these laws that prove the existence of God when combined are:
1. Cause and effect, otherwise known as action and reaction;
2. Universal entropy, with nothing known to the opposite;
3. Universal complexity, with no known source of the complexity.

Nobody says that an atheist need follow or dig into any religion, not even the religion of science. Hopefully the atheist will live long enough and become mellow enough that he will want to find out what the truth is before it is too late for him.

how can you prove cause and effect? you can only prove that we can perceive an effect. this says nothing about universal truth or knowledge. similarly, human perception of "time" is inherently flawed with subjectivity---how can we ever know or prove entropy? finally, "complexity" is not prima facie evidence of anything (certainly not intelligent design or anything similar)

from an epistemological perspective, these are just buzz words.

The only 3 times people accept proof are:
1. when they want to;
2. in extreme pain;
3. in extreme joy.

Other than that, the standard proof for cause and effect is what Newton based his 3rd law on.

The pendulum for entropy.

You didn't mention anything about complexity.

Put them together. The result regarding where this universe came from is Something that fits our definition of God.

[1714816805]

1714816805

[1714816805]

1714816805

[1714816805]

1714816805

[1714816805]

1714816805

[figmentofmyass]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

[BADecker]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

[BADecker]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

[MakingMoneyHoney]

This thread has turned into why do Atheists hate Religion? to Why don't I just convert you to my Beliefs?

Why don't atheists use rational thinking when confronted with the evidence?
Same can be asked of fundamentalist Christians.

In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.

Jesus said He was the truth

The Christ way is the truth, he is our example; he is not our savior or else he would have said as much, repeatedly.

read the OT with an open mind.

Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".

I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it. I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien. It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium. The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces. I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it, and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true. If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion. I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?

[figmentofmyass]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?"

that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence.

[BADecker]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?"

that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence.

Are you sure the boss is going to pay you this week? No? Might as well quit right now.

[figmentofmyass]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?"

that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence.

Are you sure the boss is going to pay you this week? No? Might as well quit right now.

that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.

in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.

sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.

here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.

subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.

[BADecker]

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?"

that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence.

Are you sure the boss is going to pay you this week? No? Might as well quit right now.

that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.

in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.

sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.

here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.

subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

[figmentofmyass]

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

[BADecker]

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

[figmentofmyass]

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?

"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.

[BADecker]

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?

"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.

You are free, of course, to continue to go around in circles with this. Nobody, not even God, attempts to force anybody into understanding or believing anything... nobody except the public schools, that is.

[figmentofmyass]

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

it doesn't matter if they are understandable. newtonian physics is provably false. why would i use them for a basis to understand anything?

"Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

sure, i can use "2+2=5" as a basis to "figure something out." that doesn't mean it will yield useful results.

You are free, of course, to continue to go around in circles with this. Nobody, not even God, attempts to force anybody into understanding or believing anything... except the public schools, that is.

well, thanks for admitting defeat, then. we've come full circle and you've proven nothing about the existence of god. since you cannot prove anything (logically or existentially) you merely say "nobody is forcing you to believe anything." cool story.

for reference, i'll repost what i believe to be the crux of the issue:

that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.

in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.

sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.

here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.

subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.

[actmyname]

I believe in solipsism.

None of you are real and are made up by me, the only one who is!

[1aguar]

In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.

what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such?

The truth that I am speaking of is that Materialism has been falsified.
Moreover, the survival hypothesis has been validated, and it is backed up by over 50 points of evidence. Careful study of the evidence brings one to the same conclusion that Chopra made: "Who you meet in the afterlife and what you experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now, you can shape what happens after you die."

generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable?

In one sense, you should chastise the irrational and unreasonable, in another, it is not your duty to "save" everyone and bring them the truth; your duty is basically to understand who you are and why you are here, and to obey God's Laws.

my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge.

It is good to be skeptical, even of science, which is "unprovable" by most accounts; the problem comes when those who claim to be skeptical refuse to look at evidence and instead decide to make up stories to explain away the evidence even though the stories have no empirical basis.

in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me.

Well, since the only two possible answers to the question "Does God exist?" is either "yes" or "no", then the only two positions available are either theist or atheist; therefore, you must think that the QUESTION of God is nonsensical, but I suspect that this will make a bit more sense to you if you read my proof of God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

[1aguar]

read the OT with an open mind.

Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".

I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.

Good for you; unfortunately this is not sufficient, as I will explain:

I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.

It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.
Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html

It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium.

Translation is not the same thing as mediumship; for example, the first epistle of Peter is thought by most scholars to be written by someone else, and if it WAS dictated by Peter, it is supposed that he dictated it to a scribe who wrote it down for him in a translated form. That is translation, not mediumship, and little-different from how the Journals were produced.

The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces.

You cannot judge a book by its cover; in the Journals there are given methods of determining which energy is of the light and which is not.
God says "read it all and judge in wisdom of knowledge", and "my people die for lack of knowledge"; how will you get knowledge if your book tells you to "stop seeking" it?

I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it,

Maybe you would be willing to read a whole Journal then? Like the one about the Laws of God? Or at least you could search on subjects of interest to you, like "other speakers":
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/site_search.html

and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true.

Oh, so a voice told you that you can judge the entire contents by just a few paragraphs?

If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion.

There is truth in all Scripture--mine and yours alike. If you have even a little discernment, you will know truth when you read it, and NOT before.

I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?

Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with!

[popcorn1]

read the OT with an open mind.

Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".

I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it.

Good for you; unfortunately this is not sufficient, as I will explain:

I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien.

It's not true; the scribe Dharma is a Grandmother; the messenger Hatonn is GOD, he is the same as ATON, which is a name of God, and ATON speaks through the Journals with a different voice from Hatonn but they are the same, and Sananda is another messenger whose title mean "One WITH God", and he speaks in a different voice as well, then there are members of the Crew, and finally in the CONTACT newspaper there are writings from humans, and indeed many quotations from human writings are found in the Journals themselves.
Therefore, you are getting truth from the horse's mouth, via translation, as explained here:
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html

It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium.

Translation is not the same thing as mediumship; for example, the first epistle of Peter is thought by most scholars to be written by someone else, and if it WAS dictated by Peter, it is supposed that he dictated it to a scribe who wrote it down for him in a translated form. That is translation, not mediumship, and little-different from how the Journals were produced.

The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces.

You cannot judge a book by its cover; in the Journals there are given methods of determining which energy is of the light and which is not.
God says "read it all and judge in wisdom of knowledge", and "my people die for lack of knowledge"; how will you get knowledge if your book tells you to "stop seeking" it?

I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it,

Maybe you would be willing to read a whole Journal then? Like the one about the Laws of God? Or at least you could search on subjects of interest to you, like "other speakers":
www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/site_search.html

and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true.

Oh, so a voice told you that you can judge the entire contents by just a few paragraphs?

If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion.

There is truth in all Scripture--mine and yours alike. If you have even a little discernment, you will know truth when you read it, and NOT before.

I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?

Why don't you go and search yourself? I never claimed to have read them all! You can search for the phrase "other speakers" and any other phrase you can come up with!

IS THIS YOUR FATHER    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUtUQ5YC-Q 

[Inkvor]

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

dood this is the question ,NEWTONS laws could have been made by anyone who did research ..but your fucking religion starts with only ONE
and that ONE is suspicious and LIAR,

[Betwrong]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE)

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw