I am an atheist thread 3

[Skavau]

c659smith:

1. Do you believe in Love?

Yes. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of people who claim to be in love.

c659smith:

These is not a natural phenomena’s:

Yes they are. Almost every human reports an experience of ‘love’ and as of such, an experience of ‘love’ very much exists whatever that love may be down to.

And Psychologists would also completely disagree with you.

c659smith:

1. Saints that do not decay

And what saints would these be?

c659smith:

1. The Shroud of Tourin, lets try to remake huh?

Do you mean the Shroud of Turin?

What about it?

c659smith:

1. The miracle of the Eucharist

If it was a miracle.

c659smith:

1. So your conclussion must prove ther is no God well convince
   me?

False.

My conclusion says there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. The definition of God especially by theistic standards is proclaimed by itself ‘outside of science’ and outside of ‘observation’. This to me makes God as a concept utterly meaningless and not ‘beyond’ reality, but not of reality.

But my conclusion of course, does not say ‘God is disproven’. That would be irrational.

c659smith:

1. So why don’t you tell me on what life as an atheist is about?

I can summarise Atheism in a single word:

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God.

That is it. Nothing more.

c659smith:

your morals and mine are not the same and as an atheist never will be because you do not believe in anything.

I asked you to kindly stop imposing your prejudice on me in the previous post. What you are describing is Nihilism, not Atheism.

Your inability to differentiate shows your total ignorance on the subject. You also don’t know my morals either, so do not pretend that you do.

 

[c659smith]

Yes. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of people who claim to be in love.

Yes they are. Almost every human reports an experience of ‘love’ and as of such, an experience of ‘love’ very much exists whatever that love may be down to.

And Psychologists would also completely disagree with you.

And what saints would these be?

Do you mean the Shroud of Turin?

What about it?

If it was a miracle.

False.

My conclusion says there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. The definition of God especially by theistic standards is proclaimed by itself ‘outside of science’ and outside of ‘observation’. This to me makes God as a concept utterly meaningless and not ‘beyond’ reality, but not of reality.

But my conclusion of course, does not say ‘God is disproven’. That would be irrational.

I can summarise Atheism in a single word:

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God.

That is it. Nothing more.

I asked you to kindly stop imposing your prejudice on me in the previous post. What you are describing is Nihilism, not Atheism.

Your inability to differentiate shows your total ignorance on the subject. You also don’t know my morals either, so do not pretend that you do.

Lets answer the 1st question?

Do you believe in love?

I did not ask about the sincerity of others/

I did not ask the opinions of others

It is a yes or no answer

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

Lets answer the 1st question?

Do you believe in love?

Yes I do.

I already said that.

 

[c659smith]

Yes. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of people who claim to be in love.

Yes they are. Almost every human reports an experience of ‘love’ and as of such, an experience of ‘love’ very much exists whatever that love may be down to.

And Psychologists would also completely disagree with you.

And what saints would these be?

Do you mean the Shroud of Turin?

What about it?

If it was a miracle.

False.

My conclusion says there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. The definition of God especially by theistic standards is proclaimed by itself ‘outside of science’ and outside of ‘observation’. This to me makes God as a concept utterly meaningless and not ‘beyond’ reality, but not of reality.

But my conclusion of course, does not say ‘God is disproven’. That would be irrational.

I can summarise Atheism in a single word:

An Atheist is someone who does not believe in God.

That is it. Nothing more.

I asked you to kindly stop imposing your prejudice on me in the previous post. What you are describing is Nihilism, not Atheism.

Your inability to differentiate shows your total ignorance on the subject. You also don’t know my morals either, so do not pretend that you do.

Can scientist with all there gadgets today recreate the shroud?
It’s not natural.

 

[Skavau]

Can scientist with all there gadgets today recreate the shroud?

I suspect with modern technology, yes.

Scientists have dated it to have its origins in the middle-ages and there are many non-supernatural explanations on the image formation.

 

[c659smith]

Yes I do.

I already said that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility

Above is a site that you can read about incorrupability. Other Religions have claimed such but mummification or embalming was done.

These Saints have been tested and examined by scientist throughout the world and is unexplained.

So if you believe in love than you do believe in something you can not see hear touch taste or smell.

Something one cannot prove.

 

[Skavau]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility

Above is a site that you can read about incorrupability. Other Religions have claimed such but mummification or embalming was done.

These Saints have been tested and examined by scientist throughout the world and is unexplained.

Incorruptibility is not a purely Catholic phenomenon and there is therefore no reason to presume that incorruptibility is anything supernatural from any specific belief.

c659smith:

So if you believe in love than you do believe in something you can not see hear touch taste or smell.

We all believe in many things that we cannot ‘hear, touch, taste or smell’. There are other methods of measurement.

 

[c659smith]

I suspect with modern technology, yes.

Scientists have dated it to have its origins in the middle-ages and there are many non-supernatural explanations on the image formation.

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2007/07/leonardo-man-behind-shroud-3.h

above is a site and many of the scientists from around the world including scientific American
save yourself some time and just go to the last page.

the shroud has yet to be fully copied cannot do.

If you read further dates the test done in the 80s were wrong. nineties test show authenticity of age.

 

[c659smith]

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2007/07/leonardo-man-behind-shroud-3.h

above is a site and many of the scientists from around the world including scientific American
save yourself some time and just go to the last page.

the shroud has yet to be fully copied cannot do.

If you read further dates the test done in the 80s were wrong. nineties test show authenticity of age.

get me a scientist in the the last 7 years who states that there is a natural way this could have been done and to replicate it naturally.

If not naturally than tell me a scientist to whom claims they had the ability at the time with photographic equipment.

Show proof is that not the Atheist way/

by the way waiting for you to prove God does not exist

 

[c659smith]

Incorruptibility is not a purely Catholic phenomenon and there is therefore no reason to presume that incorruptibility is anything supernatural from any specific belief.

We all believe in many things that we cannot ‘hear, touch, taste or smell’. There are other methods of measurement.

Show me with the same scientific evidence that incorruptability has occurred in other religions without mummification or embalming.

Where scientist can place their hands on these incorrupable bodies today.

do not think so.

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com…ind-shroud-3.h

above is a site and many of the scientists from around the world including scientific American
save yourself some time and just go to the last page.

the shroud has yet to be fully copied cannot do.

If you read further dates the test done in the 80s were wrong. nineties test show authenticity of age.

Your link doesn’t work.

c659smith:

get me a scientist in the the last 7 years who states that there is a natural way this could have been done and to replicate it naturally.

If not naturally than tell me a scientist to whom claims they had the ability at the time with photographic equipment.

You’re the one who seems to think this thing is relevatory. I do not. I have no interest in searching for explanations for this because I honestly see no reason to presume any sort of any divinity sans explanation.

c659smith:

by the way waiting for you to prove God does not exist

It is your claim that God exists and consequently the onus of evidence is on you to substantiate your position.

Moreover, you cannot disprove a negative.

 

[AnAtheist]

by the way waiting for you to prove God does not exist

Oh, he does. In Popper’s world #3 like all the other gods, including the nice ones.

 

[c659smith]

Incorruptibility is not a purely Catholic phenomenon and there is therefore no reason to presume that incorruptibility is anything supernatural from any specific belief.

We all believe in many things that we cannot ‘hear, touch, taste or smell’. There are other methods of measurement.

Oh but an atheists must have things that can ‘hear, touch, taste or smell’. All other methods of measurement defeats deniablity of the existence of God for then that would allow other types ofevidence on the existence of God.

An Atheist cannot believe.

Are you sure you are not agnostic.

 

[Skavau]

c659smith:

Oh but an atheists must have things that can ‘hear, touch, taste or smell’.

No they don’t.

You’re projecting again. The only requirement for an Atheist is to disbelieve in God. It asserts nothing else.

c659smith:

All other methods of measurement defeats deniablity of the existence of God for then that would allow other types ofevidence on the existence of God.

Yes it would.

But the real question is - is there actually any evidence for the existence of God much less your conception of God?

c659smith:

An Atheist cannot believe.

Are you sure you are not agnostic.

Get your words out of my mouth - they taste funny.

 

[AnAtheist]

Are you sure you are not agnostic.

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

 

[phooney]

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.

 

[BlaineTog]

But the real question is - is there actually any evidence for the existence of God much less your conception of God?

Yes.

The Beatles.

 

[Righteousone]

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

 

[c659smith]

No they don’t.

You’re projecting again. The only requirement for an Atheist is to disbelieve in God. It asserts nothing else.

Yes it would.

But the real question is - is there actually any evidence for the existence of God much less your conception of God?

Get your words out of my mouth - they taste funny.

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

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

I will await your answer with baited breath.

 

[c659smith]

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.

Atheism is a bad bet nothing more.