I am an atheist thread 3

[c659smith]

Are you sure you know the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to “sit on the fence,” many agnostics are “practical atheists,” in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability.

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

lets try this again what real evidence will you accept besides see, hear,taste, smell, touch as it relates to proof of God?

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

c659smith:

Do you require the same real evidence for evolution or the how the universe was created or much less your conception?

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

c659smith:

Atheism is a bad bet nothing more.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

c659smith:

By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to “sit on the fence,” many agnostics are “practical atheists,” in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

open attached non Christian testimony of Christ

probe.org/content/view/18/77/

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

here is scientific evidence open below

Lanciano, Italy – 8th century A.D. click on this section in the site.

please open this section when you get to it at the site. You can schedule a viewing

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

Supernatural evidence click below. Most noted less than 1 % have any embalming fluid at all and no mummifiction.
All tested by science.

One may say that there are other religions to profess the same but they have been well mummified or embalmed as tested by science if they allow it at all.

You can see these bodies yourself science dumb founded as to why there is no or very little decay but why they are not dust aftre centuries of being left to the elements and air,

You can also look up these Saints and see the inndependent scientific tests that were and are still being performed.

members.aol.com/ccmail/incorruptbodies.html

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

First the testimony of the resurrection goes back to the original experiences. Remember the eyewitness accounts that is the first-hand testimony of Peter and James. So it is not the case that the resurrection belief evolved over time. Instead testimony from the very people who claimed to have experienced it.

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

Second, how can the any theory explain the evidence for the empty tomb?

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

What theory can explain the conversion of Paul.

Would he be convinced by a myth? His conversion was in fact too early for any myth to have developed by then.

can you explain his conversion?

Do you accuse him of lying when he said he saw the risen Christ?

 

[c659smith]

I won’t even expect ‘proof’ of God. Outside mathematics, there is no application of proof - only reason and evidence.

What will I expect as evidence for God? Something which points to the observable (which does not simply involve the sense you invoke).

What will I expect as reason for God? A logical argument which has agreeable premises.

Of course. Although what constitutes as reason or evidence for evolution will obviously be different for the origin of the universe.

You cannot ‘bet’ at all with belief in the first place. Your premise is nonsensical.

I sense projection again.

Moreover, there is no such thing as an ‘Atheistic Lifestyle’.

continuation ressurection

1, Hallucenations
The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections.

2.lying–If the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection.

Did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection?

People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it.

they wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as this the deciples surel spread about the world would have been unable to produce such a lie.

1. The existence of the early Christian Church and the persecution of these Christians

Now you can find (name removed by moderator)lausability with an explaination for one maybe two of a few of these facts but to continue this frame of thinking makes the evidence overwhelming of the resurrection through which even critical scholars accept, and many strong reasons why the resurrection took place.

 

[_A]

Yes I do believe most Atheist are selfish and get angry for as why be an atheist? What is there to gain but at times not to deny oneself (selfishness) by having to give oneself to another. For with an Atheist beliefs this is my one and only chance at life and AI will not sacrifice my comfort and experiences for no one.

I think you are saying that if you had no belief in god that is how YOU would be. It is not how I am, and does not describe any atheist that I personally know.

Most Angry as Atheist would be angry about having to work when he wants to play. seen this several times.

Have you ever seen this with theists? I have. What does it mean?

Most Atheists do not make good team players such as football, hockey, or soldiers for why would I sacrifice for others.

There are plenty of atheists in the military.
Give that some thought. They do not believe in an afterlife, usually, and yet still risk their lives to protect their country.

Most atheist would have a very small world and that is of his own.

I think this is again simply how you think you would behave if you stopped believing in your god.

What I mean about hard exterior is that reasoning (open mind)with what proofs there are that God exists. That there is the possibility, That some reasonable deductions are there and that the evidence other than placing ones hands in the wounds of Christ are there. The unexplained exists.

Just because something is unexplained does not mean that your imaginary friend did it. You have to have evidence equal to the claims being made, which you have not provided yet.

Pascals theory well the opponents wrong God ! Well Buddha and the majority of non Christian Religions do not believe in a God.
that we just get recycled. man, bear, fish back to man

I don’t think it is that simple, but I don’t see the point either so…

Mormonism that we become Gods and pre-destination so why bother.

??

Islam no way to heaven and Mohamed that was a mass murderer.

The flood in your storybooks paints your god as the biggest mass murderer ever…Mohamed could not match his murderous reputation.

Unless you want to be a suicide bomber and get 21 virgins.

It’s not 21, it’s 72, and it’s not virgins, it’s raisins.

I do not know what the females in Islam get?

Same as females in any religion - second-class treatment.

Jews no way to heaven, the time for the Messiah has come and gone why many Jews are now secularists.

Again, what is your point?

Again the only reason not to pick tails I win Heads you lose is that if you did believe it would be an empty faith and that will not get you to heaven. But it should be an educated and informed knowledge that there is no God. To close down and something as important as eternal may require ways of visiting these miracles and unexplained. Asked the big shot secularist scientist can yu make the shroud of Tourin today. why the bodies of these saints are not dust and decompossing. etc…

They may be interesting questions, but they do not suggest that there is a god. If you discovered that the shroud of turin was the burial cloth of a jewish washerwoman would you then lose your faith in your god?

But to stop searching is a no go and will be no excuse when the time comes. Blessed are the poor in spirit but not those without any because of inconvenience.

I don’t seek a god because nothing in my experience suggests that there is a god.

 

[_A]

I should think that the worst moment for an atheist comes when he is really thankful—and has nobody to thank.

I just today thanked my sweetheart for a lovely evening. I have plenty of people to thank, and don’t need to give the credit they deserve to an imaginary bully in the sky.

 

[_A]

Skavau and AnAtheist, I’d put C659Smith on ignore if I were you, trust me, it reduces the complete nonsense and unfounded garbage in the thread by a huge amount.

Honestly, he might as well be mashing the keyboard with his feet.

Welcome Skavu and AnAtheist. I hope you stay around, and even though smith does repeat and decline to read answers, I don’t mind going over basic principles several times.
I think it is important

 

[AnAtheist]

People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it.

Your argument had some merit if all that were historical facts.
Would Paris really have given the apple to Helena if she wasn’t actually more beautiful than the godess Aphrodite?

 

[BlaineTog]

Would Paris really have given the apple to Helena if she wasn’t actually more beautiful than the godess Aphrodite?

Point of fact, he gave it to Aphrodite, who then gave him Helen.

Just sayin’…

 

[AnAtheist]

By definition, an agnostic is not committed to believing in or disbelieving in the existence of God. Nevertheless, while agnosticism claims to “sit on the fence,” many agnostics are “practical atheists,” in that they actively pursue the atheistic lifestyle; that is, they tend to subscribe to moral relativism and live out their lives without any concern for ultimate accountability.

See? You don’t know.
An agnostic is by definition someone who claims, that one cannot know anything about God including whether he exists or not. That is fundamentally different to being an atheist with some doubts.
If you strip God of any attribute which allows some thinking about him (like one cannot apply logic to God), then the agnostic position is the only valid one. But that is so trivial that it stinks.
Once you apply an attribute to God (like allmigthy, creator, has an elephant trunk, lives on the Olymp), then we have something to debate, something to believe in or not, something to proove or disproove. And once you do not believe that stuff, you are an atheist, even if there are some aspects of that particular god you cannot either fully comprehend or of which you have to admit, that you simply don’t know.
Agnosticism does not mean “I am not sure”!

 

[AnAtheist]

Point of fact, he gave it to Aphrodite, who then gave him Helen.

Just sayin’…

Heretic.

 

[AnAtheist]

I think this is again simply how you think you would behave if you stopped believing in your god.

You are stating a very important point. People tend to project their own thoughts and motives onto other (and onto their gods btw). So all this talking what the life of an atheist must be (well, how sould they (believers) know?), is just a projection of their own would be life, if they some day conclude there is no god.
And when I hear people talking “if I’d be an atheist, what would keep me from commiting murder, rape and other gruesome stuff” - well, that’s no argument against atheism, that’s proof that this particular person is a really evil and dishonest one who is only kept in line by his fear of hellfire. Pathetic.

 

[freesoulhope]

particular person is a really evil and dishonest one who is only kept in line by his fear of hellfire. Pathetic.

All human beings initially come to obedience in fear of punishment (no human is good); and then, hopefully they eventually learn to love good things. You are no different. I would describe a Christian convert as being infinetly honest, somebody who admits that they’re are a sinner, and that they need God in order to see value in life and become a better person. That takes a strong character, and a mature adult, in order to accept that one has flaws and selfish desires; not a dishonest person.

Secondly; there no such thing as evil, if materialism is true. Your charge of evil is meaningless. There is only evolution; and your guilt or distaste for any act, is merely a deceptive illusion brought on by a chemical reaction in your brain. You have no more value then an atom; in fact, your just an object like any other biological organism. Your belief that some act or behavior is wrong, is like somebody claiming that they visit Mars everyday through a hidden door behind a wardrobe. Your either hullucinating, or your simply being dishonest.

How are you any better then anyone else? At least the person you just slated as “perfectic”, actually believes that your life has objective value. I think that a noble and revolutionary idea which as made people strong and honorabe.

Its the materialistic concequences of atheism that reduces us to pathetic nobodies; you included.

Peace.

 

[AnAtheist]

Secondly; there no such thing as evil, if materialism is true.

Of course there is. Good and evil are human judgements, no matter whether materialism or idealism is true.
You may as well argue, the number 4 does not exist if materialism is true.
Good and Evil do not walk around on two legs, neither does the colour Green.

 

[freesoulhope]

Of course there is. Good and evil are human judgements, no matter whether materialism or idealism is true.
You may as well argue, the number 4 does not exist if materialism is true.
Good and Evil do not walk around on two legs, neither does the colour Green.

Your not a very deep thinker.

Nobody i know has ever claimed that the number four is real. However; the number 4 can measure the Quantity of objectively real objects. It is true that there are four pigeons, if there are in fact four pigeons. If there are only three pigeons; then i am either lieing or hullucinating.

If the number four cannot represent real things, then it has no objective authority to “measure” the objective reality of cause and effect. If you claim an object to be other then what it objectively is, then your are not being honest about the true nature of the object in question. The same problem arises in human invented Ethics. When it comes to the claim of good and evil you must have an objective basis for claiming that a given act is subject to moral judgement. What is you objective measure? When you claim that a thing is wrong, you are implying that the thing is other then how it should or ought to be, irrespective of other peoples opinon. 4+4 ought to equal 8 regardles of whether or not i agree. My subjective opinon about the sum has no authority over the objective answer. In other words; a things is wrong despite whether or not people agree. Subjectivism has no authority over truth. So unless you are speaking about a morality which is grounded in an objectively perfect God, then you are not really talking about good and evil; you are talking about likes and dislikes. It is true that you don’t like being punched in the face, but it is not true that it is “immoral” to punch somebody in the face. How you would like people to act, and how people “ought to act” is two different concepts. One is subjective, and one is Objective. If there is no objective authority to your claim, then your claim is false; it is irrelivent whether or not you think it is true. A thing cannot be subjectively true and objectively false. If there is no reason to think a given action is wrong other then a chemical reaction in your brain; then there is no reason for me to take your claim seriously.

On the premiss of materialism, your claim that somebody is wrong or “pathetic”, is false.