And once again, the pack of clowns say nothing about anything and avoid answering a very simple question that should be easy to prove if their assertion has merit. No wonder atheist are so damn confused. Even king dawkins who claims to be an atheist, is open minded enough and believes in the possibility of a higher power.
For my Christians Friends
- Thread starter nyxtrader
- Start date
And once again, the pack of clowns say nothing about anything and avoid answering a very simple question that should be easy to prove if their assertion has merit. No wonder atheist are so damn confused. Even king dawkins who claims to be an atheist, is open minded enough and believes in the possibility of a higher power.
Bingo we have a winner
So how can one support a position that is impossible to prove ? That means their position is then based on faith.
I can tell you 100% without a doubt that a unicorn does not exist in my house. I can bring you to my house and we can search it top to bottom to prove my assertion. But if I say a unicorn does not exist anywhere, it up to me to prove my assertion. If I can't, then my basic premise is groundless. The correct position is agnostic on this argument, as the other 2 sides have zero evidence to prove their assertion so they choose faith to support their argument and not facts.
Tdog,
How can one be an atheist and still believe it is possible that there is a higher power ? Is that a new variation called a delusional atheist ?
How can one be an atheist and still believe it is possible that there is a higher power ? Is that a new variation called a delusional atheist ?
Quote from DerekD:
LOL. Uh huh. Look at that definition again.
Geez man. I mean really now. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a diety or divine beings.
Yes. "An atheist is one who denies the existence of A deity or of divine beings."
A Deity.
If a person believes in A deity - which means - ANY divine being, that means he is a THEIST.
I will try again. I believe in A deity. Therefore, I am not an atheist. Throwing up chaff of being an "atheist towards other people's Gods" displays (as I already said), a lack of understanding what the word means.
I'm not being clever.
You arrogantly term the other gods as voices in one's head? Nice.
You really have a hard time understanding basic conversation. don't you? I said:
<i>...I see no point in debating the voices in YOUR head.</i>
... And all this talk about my posts being illogical is empty posturing unless you can actually show where. I'd gladly admit and correct it. But your posts, sir, are rife with evasion and narrowmindedness.
And your posts, contain errors and convoluted examples that you don't reason out before hitting "Submit"
I evade nothing and I am not "narrowminded". I have seen many points of view, and I have settled on what the preponderance satisfies me. Your are welcome to believe in leprechauns.
It is not my responsibility to give everyone pause to ponder, because many delude themselves into thinking they are clever, when they really know very little. The times I have given points to ponder, the skeptics come out, looking like the Keystone Cops, pounding away with their frothy, extremely limited grasp, flouting science they themselves barely understand. It is a complete waste of time.
But frankly, that is exactly scripture said they would do. "The will look and not see. They will listen and not hear" "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing"
LOL. Uh huh. Look at that definition again.
Geez man. I mean really now. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a diety or divine beings.
Yes. "An atheist is one who denies the existence of A deity or of divine beings."
A Deity.
If a person believes in A deity - which means - ANY divine being, that means he is a THEIST.
I will try again. I believe in A deity. Therefore, I am not an atheist. Throwing up chaff of being an "atheist towards other people's Gods" displays (as I already said), a lack of understanding what the word means.
I'm not being clever.
You arrogantly term the other gods as voices in one's head? Nice.
You really have a hard time understanding basic conversation. don't you? I said:
<i>...I see no point in debating the voices in YOUR head.</i>
... And all this talk about my posts being illogical is empty posturing unless you can actually show where. I'd gladly admit and correct it. But your posts, sir, are rife with evasion and narrowmindedness.
And your posts, contain errors and convoluted examples that you don't reason out before hitting "Submit"
I evade nothing and I am not "narrowminded". I have seen many points of view, and I have settled on what the preponderance satisfies me. Your are welcome to believe in leprechauns.
It is not my responsibility to give everyone pause to ponder, because many delude themselves into thinking they are clever, when they really know very little. The times I have given points to ponder, the skeptics come out, looking like the Keystone Cops, pounding away with their frothy, extremely limited grasp, flouting science they themselves barely understand. It is a complete waste of time.
But frankly, that is exactly scripture said they would do. "The will look and not see. They will listen and not hear" "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing"
Oh my God, is TraderZones actually rcanfiel? I was hoping he had just decided to leave after getting his head handed to him in debate about 50 times over.
I really really hate to say this, but there has evolved a clear picture of the fanatic Christian on these boards. More than anything else, these people just seem to be a few cognitive bricks short of a load. Is there a correlation between extreme religious fervour and lack of intelligence?
What happens is that we dismantle their arguments by pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Then, because they know that they must answer or be shown to be wrong, they attempt to rebut our analyses using the same logical approach... but they actually don't have a handle on logic. Thus we get the incredible 'I lost my wallet and it didn't exist, but then I found it and it existed, therefore God exists' arguments. Obviously these guys are in way over their head, but are still thrashing about trying to get some air.
It's actually kind of sad. However, there is hope; most moderate Christians can just admit that their beliefs aren't logical.
Bingo! Now hopefully you see why atheists CONCLUDE there is no god.
A theist says, "God X,Y and Z exists."
OK.
Atheist says, "Really? Are you sure?"
Thesis says, "yep."
Atheist says, "can you show me?"
Thesis says in not so many words, "nope."
Ok so then gods x, y and z do not exist.
The only thing an atheist need be open to is the existence of another god. But that too will need proof.
So in a way, an atheist would be agnostic when evidence is presented - a theist when evidence leads to proof.
You don't go around being agnostic to every freaking assertion. Your unicorn example is flawed. A better example would be if someone else asserts there is an invisible unicorn in your house. How will you go about proving them wrong? Moreover, if they add that the unicorn is responsible for the creaks you hear in the house when it's quiet. You may be able to rule that out as being house settling naturally. But it's impossible to prove their assert wrong. You can only conclude that there is no invisible unicorn in your house.
I am a Calvinist. As a former evangelical and having some knowledge about Pentecostalism, they are rather wobbly.
I do not seek fights. People are free to be an atheist, agnostic, or whatever.
But the standard skeptic comes wandering in, thinking that they know better. They wave science, and ask "where is your God?" I used to be one.
And the average born-again Christian does not usually appear much better. Creationism is a human interpretation of Genesis. There are some of us who happen to be theistic evolutionists.
My view is that:
1) the standard scientific views, excessively limited that they are, are relatively correct.
2) Genesis is far more mysterious and complex than anyone imagines. I reckon it as to Revelation. We really have only a glimmer of what either means.
3) The bridge between 1) and 2) is beyond our comprehension
Ok, Here's a reasonable Q for anyone who calls himself a Christian.
In the Bible it says, "Love your neighbor as yourself". If Jesus is the Son of God, and loves his neighbor as himself, doesn't that mean that his neighbor is himself...is, in fact, the Son of God? Doesn't that mean that all are the Son of God, albeit, in the disguise of denial?
When people read "whatsoever you do unto the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me", they assume I am some kind of threatening mob boss who will wack anyone messing with the "least" of my special familia. A reasonable mind would rather conclude that there is no difference between me and anyone else, from the greatest to the leastest.
Try out these two points of logic on anyone claiming to represent me that you might separate the sheep from the goats.
Jesus
I already told you I brought them to my house and we both searched for the unicorn that I ASSERTED did not exist in my house. This debate is not about a God making noises, it is about possibility of existence. To assert something does not exist when the FACTS clearly show that the entire universe has not been searched is a logical fallacy in itself.
An atheist asserts an existence of God is not possbile. Without any evidence from either side, one should not decide the conclusion on faith and should choose to be agnostic until proof is found.
It's circular logic Why do Atheists attack Christians for their beliefs when their own beliefs require just as much faith given no evidence ? Neither of us can prove or disprove God, so it's a lost cause to argue about it.
"What can be asserted / concluded without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."