C
- Status
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
You hit it on the head. When it comes down to it, all the proof in the world will not convert an atheist to the truth of God’s existence. It takes faith that there is a God to do this. Atheists chose to have faith in no God.
M
Monarchy
Guest
The ignorance in this post is astounding…
I do not have faith in ‘no God’. I do not (and so do most other atheists, exept a small minority) deny the existance of God. I have repeated this enough on the posts dealing with atheism that anyone who has read them should know that.
Why do I not deny the existance of God? Because to do so would be intelecually dishonest. Why? Because you cannot physically prove the non-existance of anything. It is therefore up to the person making the positive assertion (that there is a God, That magic is real, That the Loch Ness monster exists) to prove their point. Theists come to Atheists with hearsay and no physical evidence. NONE.
That is the same as all other religions. They all have the same amount of proof.
I know I post the above a lot but I will continue to post it as many times as the above false assertion is stated.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Your post makes you sound like an agnostic, not an atheist.
Webster definitions:
agnostic: One who disclaims any knowledge of God but does not deny the possibilty of His existence.
atheism: denial of or disbelief in the existence of God.
I disagree with your assessment that my post is ignorant. However, I am willing to hear your argument and perhaps I’ll change my mind.
C
Carl
Guest
MONARCHY
Theists come to Atheists with hearsay and no physical evidence.
**What physical evidence do you need? **
The physical evidence through the Big Bang is that the universe is not infinite and eternal, two conditions the old atheist position required to explain why God is not necessary. The Big Bang makes clear that the universe was created at a moment in time.
Intelligent Design theory more and more argues that the conditions set down for the expansion of the universe at the beginning of time favored the evolution of life, whereas different conditions would have excluded the possibility of life. The chances of those conditions for life coming together at the start of the universe were highly unlikely.
This is physical evidence for which atheists have no answer. They continue to hope that God does not exist, and so turn away from all physical evidence that even suggests the existence of God. This comes baclk to a point I have made in other threads, but it bears repeating over and over.
Atheists do not want God to exist; so they order their intellects to obey their will.
It would be interesting to know why they do not want God to exist.
Theists come to Atheists with hearsay and no physical evidence.
**What physical evidence do you need? **
The physical evidence through the Big Bang is that the universe is not infinite and eternal, two conditions the old atheist position required to explain why God is not necessary. The Big Bang makes clear that the universe was created at a moment in time.
Intelligent Design theory more and more argues that the conditions set down for the expansion of the universe at the beginning of time favored the evolution of life, whereas different conditions would have excluded the possibility of life. The chances of those conditions for life coming together at the start of the universe were highly unlikely.
This is physical evidence for which atheists have no answer. They continue to hope that God does not exist, and so turn away from all physical evidence that even suggests the existence of God. This comes baclk to a point I have made in other threads, but it bears repeating over and over.
Atheists do not want God to exist; so they order their intellects to obey their will.
It would be interesting to know why they do not want God to exist.
M
Monarchy
Guest
a = withoutYour post makes you sound like an agnostic, not an atheist.
Webster definitions:
agnostic: One who disclaims any knowledge of God but does not deny the possibilty of His existence.
atheism: denial of or disbelief in the existence of God.
I disagree with your assessment that my post is ignorant. However, I am willing to hear your argument and perhaps I’ll change my mind.
theism = God Belief
therefore Atheism = without God Belief
much in the same way asexual = without sex
M
Monarchy
Guest
Carl, This is not Physical evidence, it’s circumstantial.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
I did some searching on this. I am now in the know:
geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
You are an agnostic atheist (you are without faith in God but hold that the possibility is there that God does exist).
I am a gnostic theist (I have faith in God and knows He exists).
C
Carl
Guest
MONARCHY
First you said:
Theists come to Atheists with hearsay and no physical evidence.
Then I offered you some evidence and you said:
Carl, This is not Physical evidence, it’s circumstantial.
Yet it was circumstantial scientific evidence for which there is no rational objection.
But atheists do not even have *circumstantial scientific evidence * that God does not exist.
First you said:
Theists come to Atheists with hearsay and no physical evidence.
Then I offered you some evidence and you said:
Carl, This is not Physical evidence, it’s circumstantial.
Yet it was circumstantial scientific evidence for which there is no rational objection.
But atheists do not even have *circumstantial scientific evidence * that God does not exist.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Which you claimed was physical evidence, BTW:
No offense, but you would make a lousy lawyer, Carl
Out of time, I will answer this tomorrow.
C
Carl
Guest
MONARCHY
Which you claimed was physical evidence, BTW:
The Big Bang deals with astro-physics, which you just flunked.
Which you claimed was physical evidence, BTW:
The Big Bang deals with astro-physics, which you just flunked.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
I was PM’d on the matter by someone. The matter is more complicated than my initial analysis of the differences between atheism and agnosticism. To go into this further would probably need its own thread. Take care.
S
santana
Guest
2 Kevin
I am really sorry that I was not able to visit the forum recently and could not maintain the topic. Nevertheless, this theme arouses a sort of childish interest in me and I can’t help replying.
So we don’t see the connections between some events and their consequences just because there are too much events that lead to a greater number of consequences. Like in detective stories – only one detective and after a huge mental work manages to compile the facts altogether to see the whole line of events.
So random things are driven by the natural laws, like gravitation, but those laws are too difficult for our comprehension and we are unable of compile such a great number of events that had lead to ceratain consequences to understand those laws.
As for the growth of entropy (The more you bump things around, the more disorderly they become), you are completely right, it is also one of the natural laws. But here you make a wrong conclusion. Not every chaotic process will produce the growth of the chaos. For example – the people in a city move chaotically, the oxygen around the Earth moves chaotically, the impulses and the molecules of protein in the brain move chaotically. But the city, the air sphere and the head stay the same. Quite the same. Everything stays quite the same = changes slowly because the entropy has its antagonist – natural laws that keep things together and don’t let people abandone the city, the oxygen the Earth and the cells the brain.
Another idea: After the Great blow the state of chaos was very high – chemical matters were at their lowest level of organization and the only way the situation could change was towards the higher levels organization, at the same time losing heat = increasing entropy (but reducing chaos).
charity-fund.org
I am really sorry that I was not able to visit the forum recently and could not maintain the topic. Nevertheless, this theme arouses a sort of childish interest in me and I can’t help replying.
If I were sure that life after death, ghosts and other paranormal things do not exist, I would not hesitate a moment to call random processes the real God.In my opinion what we call random is not random at all. It is our brain, powerful in one things and helpless like a child in other things, that is not capable of compiling the great number of simultaneous processes altogether, that’s why we call them random. When there is one action and one consequence, we can see the connection and even can predict that result. (Note that many animals whose brain is less powerful than ours, frequently cannot understand simple connection between some actions and consequences.) And when there are 3 or 5 simultaneous processes, our “core memory” gets overloaded, we start thinking slower, remember how long it takes to remember the words when you tell somebody something doing something mentally difficult at the same time. Our core memory is very weak because it was idle when the natural selection defined the features and of the mankind. In those times speed, strength and reaction were most needful. That’s why we can easily manipulate with our body, gravitation, instantly predict the trace of flying objects – make calculations of huge volume and cannot multiply numbers without learning that at school.
So we don’t see the connections between some events and their consequences just because there are too much events that lead to a greater number of consequences. Like in detective stories – only one detective and after a huge mental work manages to compile the facts altogether to see the whole line of events.
So random things are driven by the natural laws, like gravitation, but those laws are too difficult for our comprehension and we are unable of compile such a great number of events that had lead to ceratain consequences to understand those laws.
As for the growth of entropy (The more you bump things around, the more disorderly they become), you are completely right, it is also one of the natural laws. But here you make a wrong conclusion. Not every chaotic process will produce the growth of the chaos. For example – the people in a city move chaotically, the oxygen around the Earth moves chaotically, the impulses and the molecules of protein in the brain move chaotically. But the city, the air sphere and the head stay the same. Quite the same. Everything stays quite the same = changes slowly because the entropy has its antagonist – natural laws that keep things together and don’t let people abandone the city, the oxygen the Earth and the cells the brain.
Another idea: After the Great blow the state of chaos was very high – chemical matters were at their lowest level of organization and the only way the situation could change was towards the higher levels organization, at the same time losing heat = increasing entropy (but reducing chaos).
charity-fund.org
S
santana
Guest
As for the intelligence arising from random processes – I believe you know that diamonds appear deep in the ground and only when a substantial number of conditions like very high temperature, high pressure and the concentration of rare elements come together. But they appear and they are not so rare. Many centuries people considered diamonds parts of the body of some dead god or something else, but now diamonds are artificially created for man’s needs and nobody thinks that they are a miracle. So the earth and the intelligence could have and have appeared as a result of many rare circumstances come together and there’s no miracle in it.
charity-fund.org- Status