For my Christians Friends

Quote from TraderZones:

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"
More...

Who the f*ck are you kidding? You're an arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all based on uncommunicable evidence. Evidence no one but yourself can feel, touch, taste, smell, hear.

I have no problem following conversation. I know exactly what you're saying in not so many words. In your POV, everyone else "deludes" themselves unless they believe as you do. That includes others that call themselves Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, etc, etc.

And yeah, I think YOU need to not only learn what an atheist is, but research its etymology and history.

Geez man, I mean really. Seriously. Tell me WHY you don't acknowledge Vishnu's existence? Or Zeus's? Or Tiki's? Or Elegua?

Lets' see, because you concluded them to be non-existent? That would make your POV concerning those gods the antithesis to their associated theism now wouldn't it?

Aww, what's the matter? Hate atheists that much do you?
 
Quote from volente_00:

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."
More...

You missed a critical point. In order for the comparitive example to be valid, SOMEONE ELSE must assert the existence of the invisible unicorn. You can't assert something you know to be false and then attempt to test for it.

In reality, someone else asserted that the Judeo-Christian God exists. You happened to hear and/or read about it and for whatever reason believe it. They gave "evidence" that you yourself cannot verify nor can anyone else.

As far as the possibility of a god(s) existing, I'm fully open to it. But none of the asserted Gods so far have been proven to exist. So logic dictates that those gods must be discounted. I cannot go about asserting a God and then go looking for it. If evidence of a god's existence is stumbled upon and subsequently proven, it will either be one of the asserted gods through the ages or something no one ever asserted before.

When a (weak) atheist says, "there is no god" an atheist is saying, "no proof that any of the asserted gods exist." Strong atheists take that a step further in logic and assert that since none of the gods have ever been proven to exist since humans began to keep record and communicate such ideas, then it stands to reason that there is no such thing as gods.

How is it that you go about discounting the other gods of other religions? Wouldn't it stand according to your reasoning that you must be open to their existence also? If not, why not?
 
Quote from DerekD:


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.
More...

A major problem faced when trying to determine whether or not God exists has to do with the very definition of "God."

Get 100 people in a room, from a fair sampling across the globe, and you'll get 100 definitions of "God" (or should I say "gods--and if so, how many?).

If I said, "there are no black swans," we could agree as to what is (1) black, and (2) a swan. My proposition could be refuted if one black swan were found, but it could never be verified as true, unless every single inch of the globe were examined first (see David Hume on this--underrated philosopher, imo). This seems to be what Volente is saying.

But if we cannot even begin to define what God is, how can we even begin to answer the question, "Does God exist?"? I say the question is imprecisely phrased, and that it cannot ever be precisely phrased, so I don't even try.

From an epistemological point of view, I don't see how it is possible to KNOW, even if something is ever found, that what has been found is actually "God".

For all we know, it could just be gas. :)
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

A major problem faced when trying to determine whether or not God exists has to do with the very definition of "God."

Get 100 people in a room, from a fair sampling across the globe, and you'll get 100 definitions of "God" (or should I say "gods--and if so, how many?).
More...


Good point.

If I said, "there are no black swans," we could agree as to what is (1) black, and (2) a swan. My proposition could be refuted if one black swan were found, but it could never be verified as true, unless every single inch of the globe were examined first (see David Hume on this--underrated philosopher, imo). This seems to be what Volente is saying.

But if we cannot even begin to define what God is, how can we even begin to answer the question, "Does God exist?"? I say the question is imprecisely phrased, and that it cannot ever be precisely phrased, so I don't even try.

From an epistemological point of view, I don't see how it is possible to KNOW, even if something is ever found, that what has been found is actually "God".

For all we know, it could just be gas. :)
More...

Though each religion defines their gods in so much as they can distinguish them from another god. They apply attributes to them such that they "know" their god.

However, more to your point, the things they use to describe their god are sometimes inexplicable. For instance, the Judeo-Christian god is said to be a spirit. Yet no one has defined definitively what a spirit is. But what they have defined is how the spirit manifests itself in the material world. But there's no testable evidence of it.

But here's the rub; they also attribute certain actions and phenomena to their god in so much as voiding out any other possibility. Take creation for example. They will say, "god did it." It's not material at the moment whether or not if they know how this god did it. But the fact of it being there (the thing created) is taken (asserted) to be evidence of this god's existence. All well and good. Except as far down as we can tell into the process of life, it appears to be nothing more than a naturally occurring chemical reaction given the right environmental variables.

Also, historical or fabled accounts in their religious texts that are uniquely god intervened that have should have archaeological evidence to corroborate.

Saying all that to say that while it would seem like epistemologically speaking, we wouldn't be able to tell what a god is if it hit us in the face, the theists of all religions have defined the manifestations of their gods in the material world sufficiently enough that we should be able to test for their existence and while perhaps not finding or comprehending its (god's) full nature, we would at least know that it (god) is indeed out there.

Much like gravity.
 
Quote from DerekD:




Also, historical or fabled accounts in their religious texts that are uniquely god intervened that have should have archaeological evidence to corroborate.
[/B]
More...

Evangelical Christians say that their Bible is without error; some go as far as to say that this applies even to matters of science and history.

Their claim is testable, but they will claim that their belief about the Bible is a matter of faith.

The creationists are the worst. When you point out that the six day creation stories in Genesis 1-3 is not supported by the scientific evidence, they attack the credibility of scientists.

They also claim that it is a matter of different assumptions or presuppositions, that science is based on faith in reason, whereas they have faith in God. Science and religion, reason and revelation--they're all the same, a matter of faith.

But you are right that archeological evidence should exist to substantiate their claims. If God turned Lot into a pillar of salt, where is it? Has it been shaken in popcorn by now?

Where is the Ark?
Where is evidence for the worldwide flood that took place, acc to the Bible, around 4500 years ago?
Where is the historical evidence for Jesus' life and resurrection?

These are not matters of faith; these are claims based on the PHYSICAL world.
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Evangelical Christians say that their Bible is without error; some go as far as to say that this applies even to matters of science and history.

Their claim is testable, but they will claim that their belief about the Bible is a matter of faith.

The creationists are the worst. When you point out that the six day creation stories in Genesis 1-3 is not supported by the scientific evidence, they attack the credibility of scientists.

They also claim that it is a matter of different assumptions or presuppositions, that science is based on faith in reason, whereas they have faith in God. Science and religion, reason and revelation--they're all the same, a matter of faith.

But you are right that archeological evidence should exist to substantiate their claims. If God turned Lot into a pillar of salt, where is it? Has it been shaken in popcorn by now?

Where is the Ark?
Where is evidence for the worldwide flood that took place, acc to the Bible, around 4500 years ago?
Where is the historical evidence for Jesus' life and resurrection?

These are not matters of faith; these are claims based on the PHYSICAL world.
More...



The bible was written by men. If 100 people see something happen, and you have them write it down, you will get 100 different accounts. The beauty of it all is you do not have to get caught up in man's account in order to believe in a higher power.
 
Quote from volente_00:

The bible was written by men. If 100 people see something happen, and you have them write it down, you will get 100 different accounts. The beauty of it all is you do not have to get caught up in man's account in order to believe in a higher power.
More...

The Bible was written by men (more than 40), over a timeframe of several thousand years. In the end, that whole puzzle results into one completely perfect picture. That can only be done by a higher power, which is our God, who inspired these authors. As long as you guys are trying to explain the bible by human sense you will completely fail. That can't be done, just forget it! Open your hearts and give Jesus Christ a chance to come into your life and you will experience the truth of His word. Think about it, you guys can't do anything, that makes God love you any less, He is just waiting for you.
 
If you are an atheist, what what you consider proof existence of a God ?



How would one differentiate between a God or say some deranged person claiming to be one ?
 
Saico:
>Think about it, you guys can't do anything, that
>makes God love you any less,

If you believe the the bible is the word of God (the same God to which you refer above), the the above statement is completely and totally false.

(Unless of course you are saying that he loves you dearly as he burns you in hell. If that's you're position, then OK ... you're correct. However, then you are left with a bigger problem: Who in their right mind would respect that kind of god?)

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top