I am an atheist

[Socrates4Jesus]

Your incorrect there. An atheist does not believe in a god. Thats it. Attaching more to it is a common mistake.

The convincing evidence is the overwhelming lack of evidence. Not one bit of independantly verifiable evidence has been produced. That is with believers and skeptics searching vigorously. Most of the claims of the believers are not falsifiable. That is another big clue for me.

I’ve a question for you A, if you care to answer it:

In all the scholarly journals and scientific research in all the libraries and databases in all the world, what percentage of this vast body of knowledge do you know and understand? would you say less than 0.001%?

 

[_A]

My last post to ATHEIST
i believe I GAVE YOU SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS IN MY PREVIOUS POST, You ignored them. You keep harping on the same lines. You BELIEVE there is no GOD, and you like to drag as many down with you as you can.
I think I have you pegged , You are either a plant from the leaders to keep us on our toes, or the instument of the devil to keep us from addressing folks in need of genuine counsel or inspiration.
GUYS WE ARE WASTING OUR AND GODS TIME.
edgarddb

Thank you for showing what you really think of different opinions.
Very christian of you.

 

[_A]

I’ve a question for you A, if you care to answer it:

In all the scholarly journals and scientific research in all the libraries and databases in all the world, what percentage of this vast body of knowledge do you know and understand? would you say less than 0.001%?

I don’t even know enough about it to assign it a meaningful percentage.
Honestly - I am not dodging.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t even know enough about it to assign it a meaningful percentage.
Honestly - I am not dodging.

Yes, i know what you mean. Me, i know far less and one one-thousandth of a percent of all the scholarly knowledge of all the world.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are vastly more intelligent and learned than myself. Lets say you actually know 0.1% of all the knowledge of the world. You would be an extremely bright and knowledgeable person, don’t you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you knew 0.1% of everything there is to know, why, i think you would be justified and claiming to be the smartest person in the world! Do you agree?

 

[_A]

Yes, i know what you mean. Me, i know far less and one one-thousandth of a percent of all the scholarly knowledge of all the world.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are vastly more intelligent and learned than myself. Lets say you actually know 0.1% of all the knowledge of the world. You would be an extremely bright and knowledgeable person, don’t you think?

I likely am more intelligent than you, if that is what you are looking for). I say so only because all the standardized tests say that I am above average.
To say I has a handle on a certain amount of the worlds knowledge would be nonsense. There is no clear way to measure either value.
Just what are you getting at?

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, you constantly insult me by saying that I ‘believe’. Stop telling me what I think or I will simply stop answering you. If you want to know if I believe something, ask me. I am right here and have been willing to answer all along.

You say I have a belief, I do not.

If you want me to believe something, present enough evidence, and I will likely beleive.

Stop telling me what I think, though. It is offensive and misleading. I will speak for myself.

The position of an atheist is that “There is no God”. That is the definition of an atheist. If that is not your position, then you should not call yourself an atheist. You should find some other word or name to describe yourself with. What I have stated above is my analysis of the mind of an atheist—any atheist, not just you. I am assuming that it applies to you too, because you have identified yourself as an atheist. If you are not truly an atheist, then fine, that analysis does not apply to you. But if you are indeed an atheist, and you wish to identify yourself as such, then what I have said above applies to you, because that is how I analyze the mind of an atheist—any atheist. I don’t see why you should see that as an attack or an insult on you personally. It describes my analysis of the mind and reasoning of an atheist—of which you happen to be one.

zerinus

 

[_A]

The position of an atheist is that “There is no God”. That is the definition of an atheist. If that is not your position, then you should not call yourself an atheist. You should find some other word or name to describe yourself with. What I have stated above is my analysis of the mind of an atheist—any atheist, not just you. I am assuming that it applies to you too, because you have identified yourself as an atheist. If you are not truly an atheist, then fine, that analysis does not apply to you. But if you are indeed an atheist, and you wish to identify yourself as such, then what I have said above applies to you, because that is how I analyze the mind of an atheist—any atheist. I don’t see why you should see that as an attack or an insult on you personally. It describes my analysis of the mind and reasoning of an atheist—of which you happen to be one.

zerinus

An atheist *can *believe nothing. Get over your error. An atheist who does not believe **there is no god **is perfectly acceptable. If that doesn’t fit into your worldview, that’s too bad, but it doesn’t help to just refuse to see it.
Stop saying what I do or do not believe. I will try to extend you the same courtesy.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I likely am more intelligent than you, if that is what you are looking for). I say so only because all the standardized tests say that I am above average.
To say I has a handle on a certain amount of the worlds knowledge would be nonsense. There is no clear way to measure either value.
Just what are you getting at?

No doubt your intelligence score is greater than mine! And no doubt you are quite correct in saying that it is impossible to know for certain what percentage of all the world’s knowledge you have learned and comprehend. I believe, however, one might make an educated guess that it would be impossible to know more than one tenth of one percent of all there is to know. This is just common sense that even someone as dumb as a box of rocks like myself comprehends.

Very well, then, lets say you actually do know 0.1% of all the collected knowledge in all the earth. The question to consider, then, is this:

How do you know that in the 99.9% of all the knowledge in all the world that you know absolutely nothing about there is not some convincing evidence that God exists?

 

[Valke2]

Assuming that it is possible that what one does not know can prove something, is that really an argument that the something in question exists?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Assuming that it is possible that what one does not know can prove something, is that really an argument that the something in question exists?

The point i’m trying to make is that just as i would be foolish to say dogmatically that God exists, someone else would be just as unwise to say dogmatically that God does not exist.

All that you or i can sincerely say is that the evidence we have to this point seems to lead us to one conclusion or the other. Rather than say that we know without a doubt God does or does not exist, the wise and intelligent and honest thing to do is to say we are uncertain.

I believe God exists based on the overwhelming evidence i have that leads me to this conclusion, but show me stronger evidence that proves there is no God and i should change my mind. If you believe that there is no God, then you should be just as willing to examine the evidence to the contrary with an open mind.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Please think about this. Truth is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of evidence. When it comes to knowing whether or not God exists, we should, as a CSI, let the evidence speak for itself, and have no opinion until we examine the evidence.

Many centuries ago Socrates said, “the unexamined life is not worth living” and i believe he was talking sense and giving good advice even to modern thinkers. We should only believe what the evidence shows you and i is the truth.

With this in mind, will any atheist or agnostic here please tell me what evidence you have that leads you to believe God does not exist? Please share it with me so that i might make an informed decision about this important question myself.

 

[ralphinal]

Just what do you mean by this?

It is one of my personal theories, yet to be proven, that lawyers have a flapping gizzard for a heart (joking, don’t sue and prove me right). I was a chemistry major at first in school, so anyone with a science background is alright by me.

 

[zerinus]

An atheist *can *believe nothing. Get over your error. An atheist who does not believe **there is no god **is perfectly acceptable. If that doesn’t fit into your worldview, that’s too bad, but it doesn’t help to just refuse to see it.

In that case we need to come to a mutually agreed definition of atheism, or one that the majority opinion here agrees with. After all, we are not debating in isolation. There are others who are reading or responding. We are debating within that framework. This is how my Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism:

The theory or belief that God does not exist…

I base my analysis on that definition. Atheism is here defined first as a theory (meaning that is not proven fact). Secondly, it is defined as a belief (i.e. it is an unproven fact). And the subject of that theory or belief is that “God does not exist”. My above posts are based on that definition of atheism, which I consider to be authoritative. Now if you want to have your own private definition of atheism, I suppose you can. No one can stop you. I go by what I consider to be an authoritative, generally accepted definition.

Stop saying what I do or do not believe. I will try to extend you the same courtesy.

I say what an atheist does or does not believe. How you choose to identify yourself is up to you. I am not concerned about that, and don’t have anything to apologize for either.

zerinus

 

[Pax]

If this god of yours values belief without evidence over use of critical faculties, then it is right to believe without evidence. I think if you fake it, your god will be unhappy that you faked. If you have a genuine belief, OK, but as I say, faking a belief would be blasphemy.
God does not force us to believe. He does in fact expect us to think and to use our critical faculties. I do not believe that your posts would lead anyone to believe that you have utilized your critical faculties to explore the creation of the universe. You have in fact indicated some indifference to this.

God does not force us into belief. He provides us with enough light for those that seek Him to know that he exists. This light is not so bright as to force those that do not seek Him to come to belief. Our freedom of choice is thereby preserved.

I have never suggested that anyone fake belief…this would indeed be blasphemous.

Also, I take Pascals wager the other way. What if there was no god, no afterlife and no soul? In that case, many of the faithful have wasted their lives chasing one religion or another, only to never find out they were wrong - because they are dead. This is an interesting contention without foundation.

Picture this - everyone drops all religions and decides, case by case, what is the best course of action. I think we would have a much better world if that were the case.There is no evidence for this. In fact godless societies have generally been the most cruel and ruthless. Our modern communist examples such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot come to mind.

We both know that most religions teach love (or say they do), but when you feed someone dogma, they are less likely to think about some issues. Atheists have no advantage…there are many issues that they are less likely to think about as well.

A good example is that the catholic church has a firm stand against abortion. The same church has a firm stand against suicide, If a woman has a tubal pregnancy, her doctor will tell her “have a D& C (abortion) or you and the fetus will die”. A dogma-driven woman might say that, since abortion is wrong, she cannot do it. A woman thinking for herself (without dogma) might have the procedure, go on to have a few more healthy kids and a good life.
Also, if the woman chooses to **not **have her doctor address the tubal pregnancy, it would surely be suicide, which most everyone thinks is wrong.
I hope I explained it properly, but basically what I am saying is that I trust *persons *to make the best decisions that they can, while *dogma *often leads to needless harm and grief.

You are completely wrong in this example and you need to bone up on Catholic teaching and the principle of “double effect.” The tubal pregnancy is a classic example in Catholic moral ethics in terms of the principle of “double effect.”

 

[Pax]

There is no evidence for miracles. None. You have believed the stories in a book because people told you they were true. If there were testable ( most importantly falsifiable ) claims being made, one could test them and get their own answers. There is plenty of eyewitness testimony and in some Catholic miracles there is actual physical evidence that still exists. You have simply decided to ignore the eyewitness testimony and to consider it a fairy tale. That is a choice on your part that can really only be justified by discrediting the witnesses and their testimony. So far you have not done that. Moreover, the eyewitnesses to Jesus preferred the painful death of martydom than the easy choice of repudiating the events they witnessed and experienced. No one in their right mind would die for something they knew was a lie. Hundreds of Christians went to their deaths rather than repudiate what they knew was true by way of being eyewitnesses. It is utter folly to ignore this and to consider it all a fairy tale without a shred of evidence.

Mohommad rode a winged horse. Is that not a miracle?
Do tell…how many people witnessed this event?
I think the Jesus story makes it worse for me. In the story, Yahweh decided to impregnate a young virgin woman (this could easily have caused her to be stoned to death at that time/place). When the child was born, it was also Yahweh, but with a different name.
Now years later, that ‘Jesus’ (who is really Yahweh) has a story. Some men come and torture and kill him. After a few days, it is clear that the killers (did Yahweh make them kill Jesus? I think it is implied) failed. Jesus didn’t die (of course he couldn’'t - he was a god to begin with). So Yahweh pretended to have himself killed in order to…um…I don’t know here…I think it was a PR thing, because all of Yahwehs killing and genocide were making him unpopular.
All of this makes no sense to me. Why would a god take a virgin? Why pretend to be killed, only to show later that he wasn’t killed?

Is this complex and impossible story more likely to be true, or more likely to be an invention of men who were trying to control other men? Sadly, this section on Jesus is at best a bit incoherant. Perhaps a single question asked can be given a full and thorough answer. This part of your post is just too messy for me to handle without taking multiple lengthy posts to do so. I will say this much. This part of your post shows that there are huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding of Catholic teaching on the subject of Jesus.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

An atheist *can *believe nothing. Get over your error. An atheist who does not believe **there is no god **is perfectly acceptable. If that doesn’t fit into your worldview, that’s too bad, but it doesn’t help to just refuse to see it.
Stop saying what I do or do not believe. I will try to extend you the same courtesy.

WOw a double negative. YOUR SUCH A GENIUS

srry i had to put you on the spot

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Jesus is a historical figure.

Jesus is the evidence.

Jesus is exactly who he said he was or he was a mad man.

Jesus demonstrated that what he said was true through his miracles. Most importantly, Jesus rose from the dead.

There is an abundance of eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus, his claims, his miracles, and his rising from the dead. You have probably dismissed this eyewitness testimony and will not accept it as evidence, but it is the truth and it is data that should help you.

Bhuda never worked miracles and Bhuda never claimed that he was God. Bhuda never claimed that he could save us from our sins. Bhuda never rose from the dead. Likewise, Mohammed didn’t perform miracles and he never claimed to be God or that he could redeem us.

I’ll take Jesus in a heart beat based on the claims and the evidence surrounding each.

What?? One thing i learned in research class that is useful to this debat is that all your categorizes have to be exhausted. In other words only using two other religions to prove your point doesnt suffice. Furthermore, while i cant find it now, Somewhere in the Riyad us salihhen, it says that Mohammed performed miracles.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So, what do you think A?

Does it seem reasonable that i should not dogmatically claim that there is no doubt there is a God? Do you agree that you, in turn, should not dogmatically claim that there is no evidence that God exists?

Does it make sense for each of us to sincerely consider with an open mind what we each have to say to one another?

 

[_A]

How do you know that in the 99.9% of all the knowledge in all the world that you know absolutely nothing about there is not some convincing evidence that God exists?

It is quite simple, really. If there were evidence in that pile, it would be BIG news. There has never been evidence that any god exists. If you have some, go ahead and show it off. I am guessing that it is the personal experience kind of evidence which is impossible to falsify.
I could be wrong, but if there were evidence of the existence of a god, it would not be so difficult for those on this forum to produce some.