I am an atheist

[Pax]

What if, according to their gods, they were being good? You keep pointing out that we are not supposed to judge gods, how is it that you feel OK judging their gods?

Their gods were nothing more than idols made of wood, stone, and other materials. They worshipped inanimate objects and objects of nature as if they were actually gods. There is a huge difference here. The pagans were not obeying a living god.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Again, not a sin unless you can provide evidence that sin exists. A definition of sin might be a good place to start. Don’t bother with the ‘missing the mark’ one, it doesn’t cover things like original sin, which suggests that an infant, who has not missed ANY mark, has some of this sin.

Well, the definition or a sin is basically what I gave you. Not satisfied? Looks to me that if something can be defined, then it must exist. Here we go: God: Our loving, all powerful, and eternal Creator who not only lives in Heaven but here on Earth in a hidden but clearly present state.

Also, it is unfortunate, but yes, infants have original sin at birth, so this presents the need for Baptism.

So having a roommate is ‘sin’, or just if you engage in certain acts?

It’s just if you engage in certain acts like fornication or sodomy. It’s not the best idea for a man and a woman to be “roomates” because eventually the temptation toward fornication would be too much. (sex between unmarried persons) I would imagine female on female or male on male “stuff” (sodomy, I think) would be a lot less common in same-sex roomate living situations, so this would be a more advisable situation.

Where is this detailed in the bible?

There is a verse in the Bible where Paul urges single people to get married if chastity will be hard for them. Don’t know where.

That Van Gogh guy made a painting of the last supper where all the apostles and even Jesus were drinking wine. Was he just slandering the church?

They were drinking wine. They were not getting drunk. BIG difference. Just because you consume an alcoholic beverage does not guarantee you will get drunk. When the time comes, I will tell my daughter this: “Your body is not an amusement park.” God did not give you your body simply for pleasure; we are called to experience pain and abstain from some pleasures - like getting wasted.

Does this include self-stimulation? Kissing? Where is the line drawn? More importantly, why?

See above: Your body is not an amusement park. If masturbation were REALLY okay, would anybody get married? And don’t tell me that’s a ridiculous question; we’re talking about human nature here.

So if someone has a tubal pregnancy, getting a D&C is a ‘sin’? What about a young child who is the victim of incest?

Tubal: Not sure. That’s a question for a priest, not me, really.
Young child: How often does this really happen? And in the rare event that it does, after the SINFUL perpetrator is put under the jail, there’s always adoption.

I know from experience that some of these don’t hurt me. You are mistaken.You have not given evidence that sin exists. You have shown examples of crimes and anti-social behaviour, but not sin.

You’re just using different words for the same thing. Admit it. What is sin but anti-social behavior? Why do you feel the need to be the sole determiner of what should hurt? The Church makes the decision on what a sin is based on the overwhelming chance of doing harm to God, neighbor, or self. If it doesn’t happen to hurt a person, then fine, good for them. But bad news for the person committing the sin, because it’s still a sin.

Evidence?

I guess you’ve never heard of the Shroud of Tourin, the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in after His death - for our sins. There is a verse in the Book of Peter that talks of His sinlessness.

Aaahhh the confessional…I remember. Some person tells you how to atone. How does he know?

Some of the suggestions are pretty standard. If you steal, you must return the item. If you are having trouble with chastity or drinking too much, (Please note, I said too much) the priest may tell you to pray more. If you are not generous, he may suggest giving alms to to poor. Most penances in order to receive forgiveness consist of saying a few prayers and that’s it. It’s really not hard to go to confession. It’s actually harder to get there on time since the priest will only hear them for an hour on Saturday afternoons.

Since I have no belief in Yahweh, I also do not worry.

You should. Fear of God is a virtue.

Tracy

 

[Tracyms1974]

@Tracyms1974

“He still likes to work within the physics of this world in order not to shock people.”

Sounds like exactly what an indistinguishable non-existent god would do though, don’t you think?

If you want to think that the great deluge that Noah built the Ark to avoid was nothing more than a garden-variety natural disaster, then go ahead. Even the hurricanes that hit our seashores, while terrible, are nonetheless pretty localized. This deluge I was referring to was WORLDWIDE. Quite a difference there. I will not sit here and even try to believe that a worldwide flood happened without SOME Divine intervention.

“Adam and Eve introduced original sin into this world when they listened to the Devil and ate from the Tree of Knowledge.”

I can’t believe how well this sums up an anti-knowledge mind-set. And how well it reflects earlier myths.

It was actually called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Tree of Know. is an abbrieviation. The devil promised Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit they “would be like gods” and see what God sees. Before they ate the fruit, they knew no sin or wrongdoing. Afterwards was a whole different story. Pornography can illustrate what I’m trying to say here. I don’t look at the trash, so I don’t KNOW what kind of crazy stuff people do out there. But if I were to get a wild hair and go to a porn website, that would be like my own personal “apple” that I choose to eat. I would then have knowledge I didn’t have before that very well could be detrimental to me. Whether Adam and Eve is real or whether it represents a general straying from the Lord in early times is not really something I’m sure of. But I believe that it’s Man’s fault that we are now born with original sin.

\Please explain how virgins conceive?

Mary became the Mother of God when she told the Angel Gabriel that, yes, she would be Jesus’s mother. God made her pregnant just like God can make some people clairvoyant or whatever. My friend was talking about St. Padre Pio; that’s why clairvoyance came to mind.

In fact, everything you assert in post 669 is a completely moot point because there is no evidence you have presented for it.

I’m a lot better at explaining the reasons that our beloved Church belives the way it does than presenting to you evidence of God’s existence. All I have to do it look around at the wonder of God’s creation. What a shame that you need more.

Tracy

 

[rboo124]

I agree with you that the statement ‘there is no god’ indicates a belief. I do not believe. I can say that all the evidence I have seen points to a gravity, but I do not believe in it. I will use existing theories to make predictions if I need to, but believing in it would interfere with my wish to have an open mind.I am not trying to ‘accomplish’ anything like you are suggesting. I am answering questions about myself on this thread, and answering questions about everything else, too. At a frenzied pace. If you are trying to ‘accomplish’ something with me, it might help to tell me what that is.
I don’t want to be pacified either. I wanted you to understand that atheism does not imply a belief in anything. There is an article posted just a little earlier in this thread which explains it quite well (I thought). Perhaps you missed it? I think you are putting words in my mouth when you say that I believe in something. You are now claiming to know my very thoughts. I have answered those who have asked why I was here, and you skimmed past it and made accusations to the contrary. This is awfully close to calling me a liar. Let’s try not to get too heated, OK?No, not too tough, but seriously, every time I open my computer lately, I have a few things to answer (and a few more before I am finished the first round lol). I have been too busy even to play my favorite computer game. I plead busyness and present my posts here as evidence. I will go look for this chapter online, and let you know if it contains special meaning for me.

I’m definitely not trying to argue with you, and if I’ve come across that way, I apologize.

I understand what you’re saying in regards to having a lot to read in these posts…I too have been trying to keep up, and I very well may have missed some points you were trying to make. It was not an attempt to ignore you at all…I just tend to jump to a reply when something I read strikes me, so I don’t lose my thought on that specific topic.

I’m truly not ‘trying’ to come across like I am on some moral soapbox…as I stated before, I was agnostic a short time ago and I struggle with aspects of religion, but I’m working on it. I feel very blessed to have had God revealed to me and I’m rather passionate about my life improvements.

I have had many conversations with many atheists and agnostics and much of what you have stated here I’ve discussed to great lengths with others who share your opinion. Perhaps I’m coming across a bit curt because of that.

Honestly, I just felt the chapter in the Big Book may have been of interest to you, because it has no religious agenda behind it…the words Buddha, Muhammed, Jesus, Jehova, etc are not contained within the entire text of the book…simply stated is ‘Higher Power’ and ‘God as you understand Him’. I feel that is a very unbiased approach towards helping someone develop their own relationship with a God as that person chooses to understand Him.

I don’t agree with your opinion, but certainly respect the fact that you are entitled to it. I just don’t want to run around in circles going over the same points of a debate repeatedly…it’s futile, in my opinion.

 

[notself]

Honestly, I just felt the chapter in the Big Book may have been of interest to you, because it has no religious agenda behind it…the words Buddha, Muhammed, Jesus, Jehova, etc are not contained within the entire text of the book…simply stated is ‘Higher Power’ and ‘God as you understand Him’. I feel that is a very unbiased approach towards helping someone develop their own relationship with a God as that person chooses to understand Him.

Thereavada Buddhists and Buddhists of most other traditions do not believe in a higher power outside of themselves.

Just correcting the record. Excuse the interuption.

 

[Pax]

…
…
The debatable instances in the bible are not 1, but many, therefore, that leads credence to think that you can not always explain it all away based upon nuances of language.

I would not pretend to explain “it all away” based upon nuances of language. I don’t believe I made that claim.

No, its not easy to interpret, which is another point of contention.

True, but interpretations are not all created equal…much can be gained through scholarship and careful study.

Now, onto Isaiah 13
Yes, I understand this is considered a prophecy and could be considered the writer’s
version of something being attributed to god – therefore that part is to be taken as
allegory/cultural/etc. That is not my main point of contention with the OT.

So going back, if your point is that god did not do(i.e order) some of what the bible attributes to him, and we should see that at allegory/cultural/linguistic, etc, where are we going with this conversation? I have already stated I can partially reconcile these things by taking it as allegory (/cultural/language, etc)

I am not suggesting that Isaiah be taken as allegory. I am making some important points about primary and secondary causes. The Medes exercised free will in plundering the Babylonian empire and its peoples. They were the direct and immediate cause even though they are not the primary cause. God allowed their evil actions against an evil empire to be the instrument of His providence in releasing the chosen people.

You haven’t answered my main question yet, (except to say that humans can’t know god): Show me a rational reason why a perfect god would purposefully cause innocents, such as a child under the age of reason, unnecessary suffering. I thought you were trying to prove that god can do absolutely anything with humans and be well within his moral rights as a perfect being? Am I misunderstanding your earlier posts?

Clarity is always helpful, and I must not be providing it. I do believe that God is perfectly right in doing whatever He chooses with His creation even if that means destroying it. That is the only logical conclusion that can be conceptually drawn from the fact that He created everything out of nothing. Creation is His possession in the same way that a pencil might be part of your inventory of possessions.

That having been said it is also true **and just as important to point out **that God is holy, merciful, and perfectly just. I will attempt to answer your question concerning innocent children by addressing the biblical passage that concerns you. I thought Isaiah 13 was the ticket because it is the only passage in scripture that talks about dashing infants against the rocks. If you’re thinking of another passage, please give me the reference and I will deal with it as best I can. I prefer dealing with a specific example rather than answering your question in general because I do not believe that God causes innocent children undue suffering.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Describe where the logical inconsistencies are please, instead of just making one statement (unless you refer to that we can’t know/can’t judge god, see below if so). Are we still talking about the same thing? I know I am not always clear on my presentations either, so I want to make sure the points are being transmitted to both sides accurately.

I was talking about drawing conclusions about options. We have no idea what options are available. There is no logical way to draw conclusions when we have little or no data. You seem to have a high degree of confidence that God would have many options in a given situation because of His omnipotence. God may not have the multitude of options that you might imagine. God, by his nature, is bound to His perfect justice. God, it would seem, is also committed to the preservation of human free will. These are just a couple of examples that might be determinant in the actions and choices made by the Creator. Knowing the intricacies of how the multitude of facts and the necessity of satisfying God’s perfect just as well as preserving man’s free will must play out is beyond our feeble abilities and skimpy knowledge base. It is illogical to assume that we can know enough to suggest that that there are plenty of options. We simply do not know.

I was concerned this was going to come into our conversation again. This is more of a dismissal than it is a point. I could easily say the same thing about any deity – zeus is greater that you, you nor any lowly human can not ever fully understand or judge his actions, and if you think something that contradicts him, then you are in the wrong– there’s not much to say about that statement, since it simply dismisses the argument and simultaneously demeans the other person for bringing the issue up(I interpret your statement as a more eloquent version of my blunt summation). As I said earlier, I fail to see the productivity in this statement, as well as disagree with it.

Please keep in mind that the conversation will by necessity involve the element of what we know and do not know. I argued that this “conceptual” fact is foundational in discussing the “concept” of a Supreme Being that created all things. It is not more of a dismissal than it is a point. We can still study, analyze, and properly discuss your concerns. We can do this by looking at the specific cases in scripture that disturb you. That is why I took the initiative with Isaiah 13.

Let’s move on to another specific example from scripture that you find suggestive of God’s injustice to children. If you would like to pick a couple that’s cool. I would only ask that you not take a shot gun approach.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things with you. You have a good head on your shoulders and you are charitable. Thank you for your patience with me.

 

[rboo124]

Thereavada Buddhists and Buddhists of most other traditions do not believe in a higher power outside of themselves.

Just correcting the record. Excuse the interuption.

I understand that, and you’re right. That was a poor example on my part.

I have an acquaintance who is Buddhist and he objects to Buddhism even being called a religion…it is a philosophy.

 

[_A]

You are continuing to perpetrate something quite goofy. I will repeat my answer from a prior post.

Your challenging God to a thumb war is not a test and proves nothing. Such a challenge would be to bring God down. If you were able to do such a thing you would be greater than God. You are not greater than the Supreme Being. You cannot bring God down. Your challenge is absurd on its face.

I didn’t assure anyone that I could beat your champion, I simply stated that I was willing to participate in a contest with him. I won by default. You claim that my test is quite goofy, but you have not suggested a test that has a measurably reduced goofiness.

 

[_A]

Their gods were nothing more than idols made of wood, stone, and other materials. They worshipped inanimate objects and objects of nature as if they were actually gods. There is a huge difference here. The pagans were not obeying a living god.

I don’t know enough about paganism to say, but I would not give it any less credence than catholocism. Why, specifically should I? Your claim that their god is not living is of little use, since your god can’t die (so isn’t alive by some definition).

 

[_A]

Also, it is unfortunate, but yes, infants have original sin at birth, so this presents the need for Baptism.

If this is true, then omnibenevolence must not be a quality of Yahweh. It sounds awful to me.

we are called to experience pain and abstain from some pleasures

I still don’t see a reason to believe.

If masturbation were REALLY okay, would anybody get married? And don’t tell me that’s a ridiculous question; we’re talking about human nature here.

I really don’t understand this statement. Why would free access to masturbation prevent someone from pursuing a partner? I have not felt guilty about masturbating in many years - felt quite free about it. I still pursued (and joined in) a serious long-term relationship with a wonderful partner.

Tubal: Not sure. That’s a question for a priest, not me, really.
Young child: How often does this really happen? And in the rare event that it does, after the SINFUL perpetrator is put under the jail, there’s always adoption.

Here is a link to an article on just such a subject.
From the article…

“We support life, and we think that children should be given in adoption rather than having their lives taken,” the archbishop said in response to questions by reporters about the case of a twelve year-old girl who became pregnant through rape and whose grandmother wants her to get an abortion.

I guess you’ve never heard of the Shroud of Tourin, the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in after His death - for our sins. There is a verse in the Book of Peter that talks of His sinlessness.

I have already addressed the Shroud of Turin by showing how much contraversy there is on this site alone.

 

[_A]

Honestly, I just felt the chapter in the Big Book may have been of interest to you, because it has no religious agenda behind it…the words Buddha, Muhammed, Jesus, Jehova, etc are not contained within the entire text of the book…simply stated is ‘Higher Power’ and ‘God as you understand Him’. I feel that is a very unbiased approach towards helping someone develop their own relationship with a God as that person chooses to understand Him.

It is funny how it is so clearly what I am opposed to, I think because it’s aim was to be generically useful for any belief, and I don’t believe.
Another thing I noticed was the claim that faith improved success in quitting alcohol. I don’t know how their studies were done, but many people give up with no religion needed, and many work at religion (or their faith) and fail. Even if it works better, it isn’t evidence of a god or gods, and it certainly doesn’t suggest which one is right.

I don’t agree with your opinion, but certainly respect the fact that you are entitled to it. I just don’t want to run around in circles going over the same points of a debate repeatedly…it’s futile, in my opinion.

I agree to a point about running in circles, but I would also like to say that I think that discussing the larger questions in the world improves our understanding of them, and there is the chance, however small, that you and I (and the others in this thread) will discover some new knowledge, or disprove some long-held theory. I don’t mind if the advances in our understanding are small, because they stick, they are cumulative and they are advances

 

[fellowChristian]

Exuse me if this has already been asked…

How can someone say they don’t believe in God?

In order for someone to say “I don’t believe in God”

says that they must, for if they did not they could not say so.

Let me explain…

How can I reject something that doesn’t exist?

In order to reject something. That something must exist.

In order for it to be rejected.

“An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.”

"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of God are merely substituting one god for another. "

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

 

[rboo124]

It is funny how it is so clearly what I am opposed to, I think because it’s aim was to be generically useful for any belief, and I don’t believe.
Another thing I noticed was the claim that faith improved success in quitting alcohol. I don’t know how their studies were done, but many people give up with no religion needed, and many work at religion (or their faith) and fail. Even if it works better, it isn’t evidence of a god or gods, and it certainly doesn’t suggest which one is right.
I agree to a point about running in circles, but I would also like to say that I think that discussing the larger questions in the world improves our understanding of them, and there is the chance, however small, that you and I (and the others in this thread) will discover some new knowledge, or disprove some long-held theory. I don’t mind if the advances in our understanding are small, because they stick, they are cumulative and they are advances

This is fine…again, as I posted earlier, this has netted absolutely nothing.

I was open minded enough to read the article you and another person provided, but you aren’t open minded enough to read a chapter offered here…

That’s just plain ignorance…I feel you are in here seeking attention and nothing else. Life is give and take…I made the offer, even offered to send it to you for free. You’re ‘not interested’…so, why are you here?

It’s like you’re in here telling everyone what kind of car you want, and standing firm that you WILL get it…but you have no money to purchase it with.

First things first.

This conversation has been beyond predictable…every aspect of this conversation has been a carbon copy of every previous conversation I’ve had with many other ahteists in the past.

I’ve already TOLD you that I can’t ‘prove’ anything…you need ‘faith’…you’ve already stated that you don’t believe…and your defense keeps going back to ‘proof’…it’s a broken record. I’ve tried to help you, you’ve rejected it. Time to move on.

I have nothing to lose or gain by your lack of faith…you do. It’s just incredibly arduous to try talking on the topic with you, it’s like banging my head against a brick wall expecting an aspirin to pop out.

I wish you the best…and I will pray for you…but entertaining any further discussion on this topic is a waste of my time that could be better spent educating myself or disussing with someone else who is atleast willing to participate equally.

 

[phooney]

@Mannyfit75

“I have faith in God. What do you have? You have faith within yourself.”

But at least he has evidence of himself.

“I also like to note that I know Jesus exist for the mere fact that we have historical documents from Josephus and others who acknowledge him. The burial cloth of the Shroud of Turin is also evidence that Jesus Christ is real. He is in fact, God made flesh”

And just when do you think Josephus was doing his writing? He was not a contemporary to the supposed Jesus anymore than you or I are contemporary to the supposed Hercules. Also, look at how much Josephus wrote about Jesus. A few lines? About what was supposed to be the jewish MESSIAH? Yet, he devotes a ridiculously large amount of time talking about, what a reasonable person would assume, are comparitively minor characters. It is also interesting to note that nobody bothered citing Josephus in regards to reference to Jesus for hundreds (maybe a thousand? I can’t remember the exact dates) of years after he wrote, and considering how much information about Jesus is contained I think it is worth considering the option that perhaps the reference to Jesus is a later addition to the text.

The Shroud of turin has long since been proven as a hoax, this is the first time in many years I’ve seen anybody cite it as evidence.

“there isn’t any evidence you can provide or prove that God doesn’t exist.”

Nor is the burden of proof on the person that hasn’t made the claim.

 

[phooney]

@Rboo124

“Have you read the chapter I suggested? If so, let’s discuss your thoughts on it…if not, you aren’t looking for answers, you’re looking for an argument. I’m here to discuss, not argue.”

No I haven’t read the chapter you suggested, sorry. I didn’t have that book on hand, are you able to summarise it? I’m more looking for evidence than anything else, and I’m sure you can appreciate there is already more than a lifetime worth of things I could read and I already have my next 5 books lined up.

“You have freewill to make your own decisions. If you want information, seek it…but, you have to be open to listening to it when it’s offered. If not, additional information may not be offered to you because you aren’t even willing to listen to the information already offered.”

I mostly agree with this, but would add that critical analysis needs to play a part in it as well. Blindly believing everything you are told will only get you into trouble.

“I’ve already TOLD you that I can’t ‘prove’ anything…you need ‘faith’…you’ve already stated that you don’t believe…and your defense keeps going back to ‘proof’…it’s a broken record. I’ve tried to help you, you’ve rejected it. Time to move on.”

And we’ve explained why ‘faith’ is irrational. I wouldn’t want my afterlife activities, if there is an afterlife, dictated by what boils down to a ‘lucky guess’ in this life, the only life we have any evidence for.

 

[phooney]

@Tracyms1974

“Looks to me that if something can be defined, then it must exist.”

Are you kidding me? You think you can define something into existence? A unicorn is a magical horse-like animal with a single horn protruding from it’s forehead. Now unicorns exist. The flying spaghetti monster is our all loving all power all knowing creator made primarily of pasta and balls of minced beef, he touches us all with his noodly appendage, the existence of pirates is further evidence for it. So now the flying spaghetti monster exists.

I hope you can realise what an irrational claim this is that you have made, don’t make me keep defining weird things into existence!

“Also, it is unfortunate, but yes, infants have original sin at birth”

It is this erroneous belief that required ‘limbo’ to be created in theistic imagination, thus imposing immeasurable emotional torment on many parents who’s babies died before they were baptised. Thankfully the catholic church has done a 180 on that now.

“If masturbation were REALLY okay, would anybody get married? And don’t tell me that’s a ridiculous question; we’re talking about human nature here.”

Yes, it really is ok, and yes people would still get married. I think you already knew this was a ridiculous question, or you wouldn’t have tried to head the accusation off at the pass.

“I guess you’ve never heard of the Shroud of Tourin”

I’m sure most people able to view this forum have heard of the Shroud of Turin and a lot of them have also heard the results of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, among other things. Here’s a link that sums things up very succinctly: csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00455.html

“It’s actually harder to get there on time since the priest will only hear them for an hour on Saturday afternoons.”

It would be a shame to go to hell because the priest ran out of time on a saturday afternoon wouldn’t it…

“You should. Fear of God is a virtue.”

As is a healthy fear of Poseidon!

“If you want to think that the great deluge that Noah built the Ark to avoid was nothing more than a garden-variety natural disaster, then go ahead …] I will not sit here and even try to believe that a worldwide flood happened without SOME Divine intervention.”

You don’t have to, because that didn’t happen.

“It was actually called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Tree of Know. is an abbrieviation. The devil promised Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit they “would be like gods” and see what God sees.”

Yes, I know. Doesn’t god even agree with the devil at this point when he says that if they also ate from the other tree and became immortal then they would be like “one of us” ? I’m just recalling that off the top of my head, don’t have my trusty bible handy at the moment.

“I would then have knowledge I didn’t have before that very well could be detrimental to me.”

This again sums up a very anti-knowledge mindset. No, I’m not saying you need to go expose yourself to all manner of pornography and examples of hatred etc just for the sake of gaining knowledge of it. I’m sure we can agree that there are more useful examples of knowledge that can be sought after. All I’m disagreeing with is the fact that you call this knowledge ‘detrimental’. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how being better informed can make you worse off. You can live in a land of illusion all you like, but the truth matters to me.

“But I believe that it’s Man’s fault that we are now born with original sin”

Sorry, I don’t buy into this, not without evidence.

“God made her pregnant just like God can make some people clairvoyant or whatever.”

So since God either can’t or doesn’t make people clarivoyant (no evidence of clarivoyance either), then he didn’t make Mary pregnant?

“All I have to do it look around at the wonder of God’s creation. What a shame that you need more.”

Whether or not it is God’s creation is something we are discussing here. I don’t know about you, but I think the Universe, and our little world in it, is an amazing thing regardless of whether or not God created it. Your argument from wonder is not an argument for the existence of god, it simply shows that you find it wonderful.

 

[phooney]

@fellowChristian

“In order for someone to say “I don’t believe in God” says that they must, for if they did not they could not say so.”

You are making the same error that Tracyms1974 did in thinking that we can define something into existence. By your reasoning we can’t say that we don’t believe in unicorns, we can’t say that we don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster, we can’t say that we don’t believe in Zeus, we can’t say that we don’t believe in Ra, we can’t say that we don’t believe in Superman, etc without those things existing.

Clearly wrong.

“An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.”

I guess?

"Those who tell us that they deny the existence of God are merely substituting one god for another. "

And which god might that be?

 

[Pax]

I don’t know enough about paganism to say, but I would not give it any less credence than catholocism. Why, specifically should I? Your claim that their god is not living is of little use, since your god can’t die (so isn’t alive by some definition).

That is illogical.

 

[Pax]

I didn’t assure anyone that I could beat your champion, I simply stated that I was willing to participate in a contest with him. I won by default. You claim that my test is quite goofy, but you have not suggested a test that has a measurably reduced goofiness.

You assumed that you, a mere creature could make God do something such as engaging you in a thumb war or any other activity that you might demand. That is a ridiculous assumption and your conclusion that you won by default is even more absurd.