I am an atheist thread 3

[_A]

But do you not see that those questions Iasked you are facts because of the evidence.

Grant is buried in Grants Tomb

Lincoln was assainated

The revolutionary war did take place.

We know this because of overwhelnming evidece

You may know this, but I have not looked at the historical evidence from your region. It seems that you have.
We don’t know this. If I felt that it was important to know, I would take steps to make myself informed.

 

[_A]

A,

Have you ever been on a jury?

For if you apply evidence rules the way you are trying to here and not by the rules of evidence

No criminals would ever be convicted.

Matters of law are decided based on evidenciary rules such as you suggest.
Matters of science are more rigorous.

 

[_A]

In what way are they not evidence? I think you mean that it’s not proof, in that it’s not enough to compel you to believe. That’s a fair statement to make. But how can you claim that it’s not evidence?

You are right of course. I mean that they aren’t evidence of a god. They may be strange occurrences, but even so, that does not make it a message from god. If it did, I could as easily claim that the streaks of coloured light I saw in the sky a few nights ago were evidence that there was no god able to stop them.

You’re not even offering an argument. You’re just saying that you choose not to believe. And that’s OK. I made that choice for a long time. But be aware of what you’re doing. You’re not arguing evidence, you’re just believing what you want.

I am arguing lack of evidence. I know that anything in the world will be held up as evidence of gods plan. It surprises me not at all that there have been unusual things discovered and that people have claimed that it is evidence of their god.
Perhaps the Catholic relics you mention are merely evidence that Allah has a sense of humour.

You’re certainly right about other religions having miracle stories. Muslims have seen the name of Allah or Mohammad written in various remarkable places. Buddhists have statues that apparently emanate light. Hindus have their milk drinking statues. I would suspect that none of them have been subject to the same scientific inquiry that the Catholic church subjects itself to, but I don’t know that for a fact.

What I am saying is that an unexplainable thing does not mean ‘god exists’. It might as easily mean ‘Krishna exists’.

For the purposes of this discussion, it’s not even relevant. Miracles in other faiths do not affect the evidence for Catholicism. It could be an interesting discussion, though, if you want to start up another thread.

(edit - snipped a stupid paragraph)

There is no difference, to a non-believer between one and another.

 

[_A]

While atheism has absolutely no evidence, facts, or proofs.

OK, you want to find some proof that gods do not exist. I can’t imagine such a proof existing, but if you will help, we can search. I am going to go through them reverse-alphabetical. When we two can disprove Zeus, then we can move on to Yahweh.
Can you help me to disprove Zeus?

 

[_A]

The reason you are a atheist is because you have murder in your heart and you love sex, and destroying anything that is Good.
You don’t believe in God but you worship the dark side. You have a hate that over powers you, that not even you can destroy. You do not know Love, I feel sorry for you, you may hate religion, God, because it is confusing to you. I am sorry you are so unhappy with your life, that you would want to destroy life. I am sorry, you feel rejected, unwanted, and unloved. That you are so consumed by this empty feeling. I am sorry, you have never felt the love of a baby or felt of its love and purity. I am sorry, you hate your parents for bringing you into this darken world. I am sorry, that you have become such a empty and hollow being. I am sorry that you think you have out smarted everyone. I am sorry, that you have let the other power take control of you and has left you powerless, that you have become enslaved by the unseen being. I am sorry… but one day you will wake up knowing, you have made all the wrong choices, and in that day, you will know what pain really is. For you will be accountable for everything, and your pain will be great, more than you can endure in this life and the next. You serve not yourself, you are not a free person, you do not know what freedom is, you are truly in bondage, I feel sorry for you.

I really don’t know how to respond to this. I think I will wait to see if you have anything to offer except judgment.

 

[_A]

Don,
I think you are being a bit dramatic

A, is a man (Human) and as such made in the image and likeness of God and as such was given free will and a soul.

It is his choice to believe or not believe and it is for God to judge.

It is our Job if he is willing to listen not to codemn but to convince of the need to repent and have faith in God.
Prayers and the patience given to us by the Holy Spirit is what is needed

First, c659smith, thank you for saying something, I appreciate your kindness. I am going to ask you to let him be, though. Please let me explain. I feel that we do everyone a favour by being who we really are. How else can we learn each other?
Don, I would like to share a favorite quote with you, from a man I think will be a long-loved writer and philosopher.
Dr. 'he's the MAN' Suess:

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.

Peace

 

[blueoval]

Wow, another thread!

I disagree that church holds society together. Laws hold society together. And unfortunately where I live, there are not too many laws protecting the rights of homosexual couples. They are not allowed to marry and share the same rights as heterosexuals couples.

What is so wrong about being gay? I would like to know what you think makes a person homosexual.

I just know that I’m going to get shot at for this one, but here goes. Church is the glue that binds society together for several reasons. A faith system encourages/requires moral behavior. Law, in and of itself, has no moral value. Nor does any governmental entity. Immoral laws can very easily be written, having a detrimental effect on any civilization.

As far as protection of homosexual rights - it’s a crime to murder, swindle, and steal from another person. Sexual preferences are immaterial. One cannot coerce another to commit perjury - sexual preference plays no role, again.

On the flipside of the same coin, Society (as a whole) is perfectly within its rights to decide what sort of behavior it will find tolerable - public nudity is banned, for example. This is the very basis of English Commonlaw. That legal framework grew out of what society did and didn’t find acceptable. So, precisely what sort of “rights” are homosexuals missing out on?

As to “what makes a person gay”…(flame retardant suit now on) no definitive research/outcome exists that proves conclusively that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. Why? It’s a behavior-driven phenomenon - unlike skin tone, right/left-handedness, hair/eye color and so forth.

Some folks would argue all day long that there are homosexual tendencies present in the animal kingdom. I’m not an authority on animal husbandry. I just know that I’ve seen a few fuzzy-headed newborn animals get their bells rung by mistaking “Daddy” for “Mommy” at feeding time. I’m not infallible (on any subject). I’m not the Holy Father. Still, I’d be quite shocked to learn of anything conclusive proving this behavior exists in animals as well as humans.

 

[blueoval]

Matters of law are decided based on evidenciary rules such as you suggest.
Matters of science are more rigorous.

Please allow me to quote from the uncommon brilliance of Dr. Eli M. Goldratt: “[science] has been lost in a fog of too much respect and mystery. Science is not about the secrets of nature or even about truths. Science is simply the method we use to try and postulate a minimum set of assumptions that can explain, through a straightforward logical deviation, the existence of many phenomena of nature.”

We all often guilty of giving “checkmate” primacy to scientific data.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

OK, you want to find some proof that gods do not exist. I can’t imagine such a proof existing, but if you will help, we can search. I am going to go through them reverse-alphabetical. When we two can disprove Zeus, then we can move on to Yahweh.
Can you help me to disprove Zeus?

That’s the pickle hard atheists find themselves in: they can never hope to prove their claims, while the claims of theists may be proved at any time should God or Jesus appear to confirm them. That type of atheism is truly a hopeless position, in terms of actually demonstrating validity.

 

[Kaninchen]

That’s the pickle hard atheists find themselves in: they can never hope to prove their claims, while the claims of theists may be proved at any time should God or Jesus appear to confirm them. That type of atheism is truly a hopeless position, in terms of actually demonstrating validity.

Shifting the burden of proof is proof of nothing.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. I would wonder why you leap to the ‘intelligent being’ answer just because something is difficult to understand.

There is no scientific evidence for your intelligent being, so inserting him into a scientific theory is, well, unscientific.

If you would care to give a robust and rigorous definition of this ‘intelligent being’, then perhaps it can be used in scientific theories.

Good A:

You amaze me at how you are able to keep so many dialogs straight! You have done much better than myself when others have engaged me in debate all at the same time.



I’m trying to reason with you and be as reasonable and logical as i can be. What i am saying is i have seen no evidence that scientists have been able to create DNA. If one had, it would make the news on every major news network worldwide.

So, i am having difficulty understanding why you would believe the hypothesis that inanimate chemicals can form the DNA of animate life forms. Are you saying you believe this to be scientific fact, despite no scientific proof?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think that there is no evidence that this man named Jesus Christ ever rose from the dead.

That remains to be seen. I’m not trying to convince you a dead guy really did get up and walk (at least, not yet)!

I’m simply asking if you agree that Isaiah, chapter 53, is evidence that the prophet Isaiah predicted the exact manner of Jesus’ execution. Please look at these words and tell me what you think.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

(Isaiah 53:4-5)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Phooney:

Sorry, have i missed one of your replies to me? If so, please let me know.

 

[Armor_of_God]

The reason you are a atheist is because you have murder in your heart and you love sex, and destroying anything that is Good.
You don’t believe in God but you worship the dark side. You have a hate that over powers you, that not even you can destroy. You do not know Love, I feel sorry for you, you may hate religion, God, because it is confusing to you. I am sorry you are so unhappy with your life, that you would want to destroy life. I am sorry, you feel rejected, unwanted, and unloved. That you are so consumed by this empty feeling. I am sorry, you have never felt the love of a baby or felt of its love and purity. I am sorry, you hate your parents for bringing you into this darken world. I am sorry, that you have become such a empty and hollow being. I am sorry that you think you have out smarted everyone. I am sorry, that you have let the other power take control of you and has left you powerless, that you have become enslaved by the unseen being. I am sorry… but one day you will wake up knowing, you have made all the wrong choices, and in that day, you will know what pain really is. For you will be accountable for everything, and your pain will be great, more than you can endure in this life and the next. You serve not yourself, you are not a free person, you do not know what freedom is, you are truly in bondage, I feel sorry for you.

WHOA, take it easy on the guy, Don!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

National Enquirer

It is by evidence that we attain facts/truth

Of course I agree with that.

And it’s Natural Enquirer.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I am arguing lack of evidence. I know that anything in the world will be held up as evidence of gods plan. It surprises me not at all that there have been unusual things discovered and that people have claimed that it is evidence of their god.

But you’re not even doing that. We presented you with a half dozen pieces of evidence for God’s existence. You are free to disagree with the conclusions, but I think you sound unreasonable when you do so.

I would love to see you as a trial lawyer. The other side presents an iron-clad case built on several parallel lines of evidence. You shrug at the judge and say, “Your honor, there’s just no evidence!” Good luck with that.

So far, you have not even made an attempt at disputing any of the evidence presented. I think it’s pretty clear that you’re not interested in honest inquiry. If you were, you wouldn’t be dismissing well-documented miracles, you would be researching them. Trying to disprove them. Trying to come up with a plausible alternative explanation. You haven’t, and won’t, because you can’t. But you dont want to deal with the ramifications of that.

“Miracles don’t make faith, faith makes miracles.”

The really sad thing is that you’re just going to go on parrotting the same nonsense. “Boy, those Christians believe whatever they want, even though there’s no evidence for it!”

Have a nice day.

 

[blueoval]

The Shroud of Tourin and the Miracle of the Eucharist are facts.

Absolutely correct! He, who has eyes, let him see. He, who has ears, let him hear.
paranormal.about.com/od/othermiracles/Other_Miracles_and_Religious_Mysteries.htm?iam=momma_100_SKD&terms=Holy+Shroud+of+Turin

I happened to swap a few e-mails several years ago, with a Jewish scientist who worked on the team that tested the Shroud. He confided to me that there was no doubt in his mind that the cloak was authentic. He also sheepishly added that the experience shook the very foundation of his personal religious beliefs. I wish I could recall the man’s name.

Regardless, it’s a safe bet that the seemingly endless debate over the authenticity will never be fully resolved. Take a look:
allaboutarchaeology.org/shroud-of-turin.htm

I’ll leave you to contemplate these two points. First, the 12 Apostles all risked their very lives to meet with Jesus. If Christ weren’t who He said He was, would they have done the same for a charlatan? Think about it.

Lastly, let’s just suppose for a moment that atheists are correct and believers die only to find there is really no God. What have we lost by persisting in our belief? Nothing at all, quite frankly.

Now, let’s look at the inverse. Atheists die only to find that God is very REAL…what have they lost in not believing? The answer is ETERNITY, friends. And that’s a frightfully long time, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[_A]

I just know that I’m going to get shot at for this one, but here goes. Church is the glue that binds society together for several reasons. A faith system encourages/requires moral behavior. Law, in and of itself, has no moral value. Nor does any governmental entity. Immoral laws can very easily be written, having a detrimental effect on any civilization.

As far as protection of homosexual rights - it’s a crime to murder, swindle, and steal from another person. Sexual preferences are immaterial. One cannot coerce another to commit perjury - sexual preference plays no role, again.

On the flipside of the same coin, Society (as a whole) is perfectly within its rights to decide what sort of behavior it will find tolerable - public nudity is banned, for example. This is the very basis of English Commonlaw. That legal framework grew out of what society did and didn’t find acceptable. So, precisely what sort of “rights” are homosexuals missing out on?

As to “what makes a person gay”…(flame retardant suit now on) no definitive research/outcome exists that proves conclusively that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. Why? It’s a behavior-driven phenomenon - unlike skin tone, right/left-handedness, hair/eye color and so forth.

Some folks would argue all day long that there are homosexual tendencies present in the animal kingdom. I’m not an authority on animal husbandry. I just know that I’ve seen a few fuzzy-headed newborn animals get their bells rung by mistaking “Daddy” for “Mommy” at feeding time. I’m not infallible (on any subject). I’m not the Holy Father. Still, I’d be quite shocked to learn of anything conclusive proving this behavior exists in animals as well as humans.

I think a little honest research on homosexuality in the animal kingdom (which *includes *humans) would help you understand in ways that my opinion never could.

 

[_A]

That’s the pickle hard atheists find themselves in: they can never hope to prove their claims, while the claims of theists may be proved at any time should God or Jesus appear to confirm them. That type of atheism is truly a hopeless position, in terms of actually demonstrating validity.

…and since you similarly cannot disprove Zeus (or any other deity), you have a god with an equal probability.

 

[whatevergirl]

It’s not a ‘faith’. Just clear-thinking.

Atheism is rooted in ‘self’ thinking…when we don’t ask for God to help us in life–we hope in ourselves. It’s dangerously self seeking. (not saying I have never been self seeking as a Christian, but…it’s always left me empty)