how 'bout fake
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
how 'bout fake
As mentioned before, in Stoic logic, a speech/statement is very different from a saying/logos.
Unless the atheists have a clear definition of God, they cannot effectively say there is no God.
Whenever saying there is no God, that means the atheists know well what is God and there is no such God existing per the definition accepted/agreed by both believers and atheists.
But what is that definition? Actually the atheists do not agree with (basically) All the definitions according to mainstream religions.
Perhaps the atheists should have said something like "We don't know what is God yet, and we don't accept All the definitions by your believers of all faiths, according to our research so far.
Please check our BoK systematically developed from the last several decades. We have our own research institutions and universities, backed by well-known professors and scholars, plus a number of PhD graduates who are currently teaching in not only high schools but also many other first tier world class universities worldwide among countries of all faiths.
And we atheists are still working on the definition of God, as there might be a God that we don't understand because we don't know yet. However this unknown God would be, we think, surely not what you guys believe in your conventional ways from various existing religions."
AFAIK, an atheist nowadays would be actually either a philosopher, humanist, rationalist, naturalist, skeptic, etc. that do not usually accept any common definition of God from various faiths.
Unless the atheists have a clear definition of God, they cannot effectively say there is no God.
Whenever saying there is no God, that means the atheists know well what is God and there is no such God existing per the definition accepted/agreed by both believers and atheists.
But what is that definition? Actually the atheists do not agree with (basically) All the definitions according to mainstream religions.
Perhaps the atheists should have said something like "We don't know what is God yet, and we don't accept All the definitions by your believers of all faiths, according to our research so far.
Please check our BoK systematically developed from the last several decades. We have our own research institutions and universities, backed by well-known professors and scholars, plus a number of PhD graduates who are currently teaching in not only high schools but also many other first tier world class universities worldwide among countries of all faiths.
And we atheists are still working on the definition of God, as there might be a God that we don't understand because we don't know yet. However this unknown God would be, we think, surely not what you guys believe in your conventional ways from various existing religions."
AFAIK, an atheist nowadays would be actually either a philosopher, humanist, rationalist, naturalist, skeptic, etc. that do not usually accept any common definition of God from various faiths.
how 'bout imaginary then.
.... btw, isn't it up to the theist who makes the claim, to have the clear definition. The atheist isn't supposed to.
The atheist doesn't make the definition, the atheist interrogates the theist's definition.
And when the theist does have a definition of God -which is invariably anything but clear- fake, made-up, fictional, imaginary are all adjectives that describe the theist's definition.
By the same token that an aunicornist can effectively say there is no Unicorn, an atheist can effectively say there is no God
There was a documentary not too long ago that provided some insight as to why crucifix nails were found with the remains of high priests. It was said to be a form of luck?
There's nothing lucky about having nails that were pulled out of hands and feet of suffering individuals dying on the cross.
I can understand some people don't like the term God. But we can call God something else. Such as Super-All-Things, or Super-Santa?
Names like Santa, MacDonald, etc could be also man-made. Not real. They represent a meaning - a construct for something.
If I am open-minded, I would understand there is a construct representing something that includes so many things of that many we can see and many we cannot see as well as many we don't even know by today's science.
If I am asking what is the name for that construct, some people would tell me that is God. And I would be happy to learn more about what they have found about the God they know.
If the God they know is just part of the whole construct, I would then try to find more about the construct with a systematic approach, methodically. During the process, I wouldn't mind to communicate with others by saying the God I am searching looks like more than what you told me before, much much more.
I could even share with them about the God I have found so far, hoping that their feedback and criticism can point me to a better definition.
Why would I give up this challenging process by simply saying that they/you are wrong - Full Stop?
By allowing the God construct being a source of many proven illogical and unreasonable problems existing forever without any thorough investigation or research - serious study?
Is that scientific - mind or approach? No, of course Not! That not spending time/energy in investigating that would be just an escape and avoidance from a real issue/topic, unless you don't see it is an issue/topic. A thing for a man with an independent mind like the Real Jesus would not do.
All the famous atheists could not easily ignore the above questions. Otherwise, they are just believing a Non-God, which is to reject whatever anything about God, once hearing and watching the word God. Is that open-minded or scientific approach?
Just 2 cents. LOL
Names like Santa, MacDonald, etc could be also man-made. Not real. They represent a meaning - a construct for something.
If I am open-minded, I would understand there is a construct representing something that includes so many things of that many we can see and many we cannot see as well as many we don't even know by today's science.
If I am asking what is the name for that construct, some people would tell me that is God. And I would be happy to learn more about what they have found about the God they know.
If the God they know is just part of the whole construct, I would then try to find more about the construct with a systematic approach, methodically. During the process, I wouldn't mind to communicate with others by saying the God I am searching looks like more than what you told me before, much much more.
I could even share with them about the God I have found so far, hoping that their feedback and criticism can point me to a better definition.
Why would I give up this challenging process by simply saying that they/you are wrong - Full Stop?
By allowing the God construct being a source of many proven illogical and unreasonable problems existing forever without any thorough investigation or research - serious study?
Is that scientific - mind or approach? No, of course Not! That not spending time/energy in investigating that would be just an escape and avoidance from a real issue/topic, unless you don't see it is an issue/topic. A thing for a man with an independent mind like the Real Jesus would not do.
All the famous atheists could not easily ignore the above questions. Otherwise, they are just believing a Non-God, which is to reject whatever anything about God, once hearing and watching the word God. Is that open-minded or scientific approach?
Just 2 cents. LOL
Last edited:
how 'bout a better definition would be.... your ego.
Did I say I don't have any ego?
What I meant was, if I found something I am personally interested I would pursuit to find answers.
I wouldn't discourage anyone to do anything that would be her/his personal interest. Do you?
And I don't consider that would be her/his own ego alone.
Especially, when some believers of any faiths in the past history as well as in the present days tried to kill other innocent people in the name of God.
LOL - I didn't say you are wrong either! Thanks for your positive comments! And the baits!