i hope god showes he's self to u but i dont think u r a bad person i think that your just u even though i dont know u i still think of every one as they are not becuz of what they believe in bcuz its not right :D
If the definition of a word is mutable, meaning is not possible .. nor can logic be applied if definitions are not certain. The ability to precisely convey a concept depends on semantics.
Lacking a belief in God. Not believing in God. Believing that there is no God. Sounds the same to me. I think people just like to complicate things when it's really just this simple. It's the same thing.
Belief suggests a faith-based thinking. Atheism is a scientific-based way of thinking where hard evidence and facts are used to describe the universe. I'm afraid you misunderstand a LACK of belief as a belief in something. Atheists don't believe anything, they UNDERSTAND the FACTS and evidence for how reality works.
The difference is far from semantic. Atheism is not a faith preposition. I don't believe there are no gods, I don't believe in gods. No belief is not the same as a belief of not. Bald is not a hair colour.
When you compare theist and atheist positions as beliefs, you are saying that subjective and personal impression trumps objective evidence and reason. This might be true in matters of the heart, but not about the nature of the universe.
religion haters often claim to be atheists to appear more intelligent or educated, this seems to be an underlying factor in most, even more think they have been abused by the teachings of the church(mabey so on that one huh?) it becomes a word game that no one wins, we just manipulate the language until it trips one or the other up, you know.
I don't feel it's a play on words. I myself see a big difference in the sentence: "I believe there is no God" (an Active Belief) and the sentence: "I don't believe in a God" (the rejection of an Active Belief)
If I say I don't believe in a God, I'm simply rejecting a beliefsystem, not obtaining a new. If I say "I believethere is no God", I'm taking on a new belief system...
When you say you do not believe in a god, you are not saying that you have rejected anything. You have not said anything about you at all. We cannot imply from "you do not believe" that you exist. When you did not exist you also did not believe.
Nor can you prove it is true, this saying you do not believe is a belief itself as well as about what you aren't and not about what you are.
dear lady - on youtube please look up Ravi Zachariah ...' What does it mean to be human? Part 1.' ... i hope you may see something in his words that you dared not ever hope to be true..... :)
As Ryushai said, these are two different statements. One is intellectually honest, and the other is not. I don't know that invisible unicorns don't exist, but I have zero reason to believe that they do.
Hundreds of years ago I could have insisted that there were no such thing as a black swan, but I'd be violating Ocham's Razor and ultimately proven wrong. Lacking belief is an intellectually honest statement that does not make claims beyond the evidence.
"is intellectually honest, and the other is not. I don't know that invisible unicorns don't exist, "
So how intellectually honest is it to spin "I believe there is no god" to "I know there is no god"?
"Lacking belief is an intellectually honest statement"
There is no such thing as a lack of anything. Lacking something is not a thing itself. It is not speaking about Jim to say Jim lacks something, it is speaking to what Jim does not have, which has no bearing on Jim.
@gklr It's intellectually dishonest to spin "I believe there is no god" to "I know there is no god", I agree.
Your second explanation is incoherent. Lacking a trait is a valid part of the description of something; it adds information. If Jim lacks legs, surely we have gained information about Jim.
But I agree that the only reason that lacking a belief in something is a culturally relevant attribute is because superstitious belief is so prevalent in our society.
"Lacking a trait is a valid part of the description of something; it adds information. If Jim lacks legs, surely we have gained information about Jim."
You have said what Jim does not have. Saying "Jim does not have legs" says what is not the case about Jim, not what is the case about Jim. "Not have legs" is not what Jim does. "No legs" is not a thing.
Not cannot be applied to legs or beliefs, only to propositions and propositional functions.
"But I agree that the only reason that lacking a belief in something is a culturally relevant attribute is because superstitious belief is so prevalent in our society."
Lacking belief is not anything. There is no such thing. Why you would say you agree that I say such a thing is what interests me here, lol. I am quite clear on this issue. There is no such thing as a lack of belief and it does not speak about atheists to say they lack belief.
A lack of something isn't anything. Lacking a 32nd head is not a trait of anyone. Jim lacked legs in the year 1200 when Jim did not exist, so no, it says nothing about Jim.
Not is a not a statement of identity, which means we can talk about nonexistent things and say what they are not. eg: the present King of France does not exist. That is true, and not about the present King of France or we have shown him to exist. A truth about an object proves it exists.
@gklr As I illustrated before, the lacking of something is still descriptive. I gave you an example. Jack lacks legs. You have now gained information about Jack, have you not? Lacking a 32nd head also adds information. If you know that I lack a 32nd head, you now know that I have at most 31 heads. That is information. If you were to try to draw a picture of me, you'd know that, despite all other unknowns, you would have to draw *at most* 31 heads. How can you refute this plain fact?
"As I illustrated before, the lacking of something is still descriptive"
Never. Saying X lacks Y is not talking about X nor does it describe anything. Descriptions refer to things that exist. Saying X lacks Y says what is not the case, not what is the case.... about X. What is not the case, is not what is real, not what exists.
@gklr You continue to make these naked assertions without addressing my examples. So let's face the issue head on, without any evasiveness:
Yes or no: If I have an apple in a box, and you know that this apple is not red, do you have any information about this apple beyond if I hadn't told you anything about it besides the fact that it's an apple?
Yes or no: If you were to draw an apple fitting either description, would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way?
"You continue to make these naked assertions without addressing my examples."
False and false. Show which assertion you consider naked. The only way you could possibly say I did not address your examples would be to not see them below. You have given information about what is not the case and said that IS the case. Is does not equate is not, and is your logical error.
@gklr Ah okay, so if I have two groups of 1,000,000 random people tasked with drawing an apple with crayons. One of the groups knows that the apple isn't red. By your logic, I should see a statistically identical distribution of apple colors in the two sets of drawings? Yes or no?
@gklr Please avoid trying to evade the question. It's very simple, and we can work from some assumptions. Assume in our apple-drawing example that each person did use a single color of crayon to draw a single apple. In the "not red" group, would you expect to see a higher or lower number of apples drawn with a red crayon? You can nitpick the example all you want but it's a red herring.
I will reiterate: This is an extremely simple question to answer.
You cannot assume from "the apple is not red" that the apple exists.... because when the apple did not exist then it was not red.
Not red does not exist. Not X, no matter what X is, does not exist. Where X is anything, not X is not anything.... no matter what X is.
Make X anything at all, not X is not anything at all. Nothing IS (not red). Things ARE NOT (red). Red is something you can be, not red isn't anything at all.
"I should see a statistically identical distribution of apple colors in the two sets of drawings? "
You would see more red apples in one group than the other, I would expect. And of every red apple you see, each of them is not blue. Not blue however is not a property of the red apples, it is not anything.
There is no such thing as "not blue". They are also not the number 22, not Jupiter and not believers in god... which says nothing about the apple.
@gklr Thank you, I'm sorry I didn't catch this response earlier. Correct, you would almost certainly see more red apples in one group. But if "not red" "says nothing" about the apple, this implies that it adds no information to the description of the apple. But if it added no information, there would be no basis for a distinction. But clearly there would be a distinction, thus "not red" is descriptive. Q.E.D.
"But if it added no information, there would be no basis for a distinction"
Saying what something is not, says nothing about that something at all. When no apples existed at all, then all apples were not red. I just said nothing about all apples, I said what they are not.
The present King of France does not exist, is not red, is not a believer in god, is not an atheist, is not a theist, is not anything. I have said 6 things there, all true, none of it true about the pKoF.
By saying that the present King of France is not red or not a believer in god, I have said what is not the case about the present King of France. I have not said what is the case about the pKoF.
If I stated a truth about the pKoF, then I would prove the pKoF exists. Saying the pKoF does not exist, if true (it is) and about the pKoF, then I have proven the pKoF exists.
All yes/no questions are false dichotomies. When I ask you if you would like ice cream and you say "yes I want ice cream" then you are answering the question. When you answer "no, I don't want ice cream" then you have answered to what you do not want when I asked what you want. You'd need to reply "I want no ice cream" to answer the question, otherwise it remains unanswered. You didn't want ice cream when you did not exist, so saying that does not talk about you.
"Yes or no: If I have an apple in a box, and you know that this apple is not red, do you have any information about this apple beyond if I hadn't told you anything about it besides the fact that it's an apple?"
No. You know nothing about the apple other than it is an apple. Saying "I have an apple in a box" is at least talking about the apple. Saying the apple is not red does not speak about what the apple is. It speaks about what the apple is not.
"Yes or no: If you were to draw an apple fitting either description, would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way?"
Not at all, you have said nothing about the apple other than it is an apple (about the apple) and that it is not red (not about the apple).
Not red is not a colour I have to use to depict the apple. Not red does not exist, there is no such thing as "not something". When you misread "not red" to be about what the apple is, you have an error.
"would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way"
Not red is not a description of anything. Not red is not anything at all.
Not cannot be applied to anything other than a proposition (Greg is alive or Greg is not alive) or propositional function (X is Y or X is not Y). You cannot "not" a belief, red, theists etc. as they are not propositions or propositional functions.
@gklr Please demonstrate how "alive or not alive" is a valid proposition as compared to "red or not red", if you assume an established objective definition of "red" (e.g. a certain measurement range with a spectrometer). Currently it appears you have a differentiation without a difference.
"Please demonstrate how "alive or not alive" is a valid proposition as compared to "red or not red""
not alive isn't what anything is, it is what things are not. Not red is not what anything is, it is what things are not. Not alive is no more a thing, than not red is a thing.
Everything is red or not red, even things that do not exist are not red. They are not, red. That does not say they ARE (not red). Nothing IS (not red). They are not (red). Red is something you can be.
@gklr You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said:
"Not cannot be applied to anything other than a proposition (Greg is alive or Greg is not alive)"
"You cannot "not" a belief, red, theists etc. as they are not propositions..."
And now you claim that alive/not alive and red/not red fall into the same category.
I agree with your tangential line of reasoning which amounts to "'nothing' isn't something", but it's not what we're arguing. We're arguing descriptiveness.
Not is a logical operator. It can only be applied to propositions and propositional functions.
Greg is not red is a proposition. Greg is not alive is a proposition. "Not red" is not a proposition. Not alive is not a proposition. Not red or not alive are not anything.
When I make the proposition that Greg is not red, I have not said "Greg is (not red). I have said "Greg is not (red)." I have said what is not the case about Greg, not what is the case about Greg.
@gklr Sure, so then it's clearly just semantics, and this is reaching the boundaries of Poe's Law. By your reasoning, the statement that I "lack belief" in a deity can easily be phrased in a way that's palatable to you. "It is not the case that vargonian has a belief in God." Acceptable?
Please refresh my memory for clarity: Were you originally making the argument that a person either believes a god exists or doesn't exist, and nothing in between?
"the statement that I "lack belief" in a deity can easily be phrased in a way that's palatable to you. "It is not the case that vargonian has a belief in God." Acceptable?"
Yes they say the same thing. We are saying what is not the case about vargonian, or what is not the case about atheists. And what is not the case about atheists is not what IS the case about atheists. To say atheists lack belief in a god is true, about what atheist are not, not true about what atheists are.
"Were you originally making the argument that a person either believes a god exists or doesn't exist, and nothing in between?"
No not at all.
Everyone believes a god exists (theist) or not (nontheist)
Everyone believes that no god exists (atheist) or not (nonatheist)
Babies neither believe there is no god nor believe there is a god. They are neither atheists nor theists. Are they "inbetween"? I wouldn't use "inbetween" no. They are nontheists and nonatheists.
@gklr Okay, that clears up your position, though it's still nitpicking semantics. As plainly shown with the apple example, you can clearly gain information by specifying something's limits (e.g. "not red", "less than 12" (not greater than 11), not flammable.
It also appears you're using a different version of "atheist" than the literal "without belief in a deity" meaning that most self-identified skeptical atheists seem to subscribe to.
"I gave you an example. Jack lacks legs. You have now gained information about Jack, have you not? "
Nope. Jack had no legs when Jack did not exist. When Jack did not exist there are no truths for Jack. A truth about an object proves that object exists. Saying Jack lacks legs does not say that Jack even exists. You know nothing about Jack at all, by knowing what is not the case about Jack.
"That is information. If you were to try to draw a picture of me, you'd know that, despite all other unknowns, you would have to draw *at most* 31 heads. How can you refute this plain fact?"
It is information about what is not the case. It is not a fact. Facts are properties of material objects. For my blue pen, the blueness is a fact about the pen.
you gonna become muslim. You know how? at first, you do not wanna know anything associated with islam because of the media portrayal of islam- you do not even wanna think of it. one day you say to yourself, hey what a hack, I am smart girl, I know what is good and what is bad, it wont harm me to read few thing about islam from muslim authors on contemporary issues, and for the rest i hope to hear from you
@viper19861986 That is what we call a strawman argument. The scientific theories that explain our existence are not magic, nor do they say things take place over mere millions of years. We're talking in billions here. Our species didn't evolve until ~14 billion years into the universe's existence, and ~4 billion years into life's existence. 4,000,000,000 years. There's nothing magic about it, they're natural processes.
@Fissioninferno Really? I NEVER have heard of that term before "strawman" cool :D
Well at least someone can make an adult point to someone on here :)
But really my belief is that god created stuff via some way, evolution to create all the animals maybe? who knows :) who cares! I find it funny how people can make such a big deal bout such a silly topic and they just call each other dumb.
@viper19861986 Yeah, a strawman argument is basically when someone argues against a position that the other side doesn't hold (evolution being magic, for one).
Usually it's not an argument about evolution itself but what many creationists/intelligent design supporters do when it comes to everything else in science (ironically while using the Internet, one of science's greatest achievements). Being ignorant of science in this day and age is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
You act according to what you believe, not what you don't believe. Atheists say they "lack belief in God". They don't believe or disbelieve in God. Yet, if you defend the Bible as being true or the Christian God as the only God, they're quick to attack in order to disprove God's existence. They are behaving according to what they believe, not what they don't believe.
Its inconsistent to say that you lack belief in something and then behave as though you deny the existence of that something. Without admitting it, their worldview doesn't "lack belief about God"; it denies God.
Some atheists or agnostics simply do not believe that the question of god or no god is important. I simply believe that there is no good reason to believe in any god. If religious people either kept quiet or did not exist, it is probably something that I would not ponder. Is that a belief system? In some ways I'd say it is.
Some atheists are insistent that no god exists. That certainly is a belief system.
What proof do you have that the universe did not always exist?
How do you have time begin, when that would require an event to happen when no time existed? When was that? Before time existed is not a time? Explain.
Time cannot begin, because it requires time exists before time exists.
If time always existed then so too did mass and energy or else e=mc2 is false. C2 is only measurable as a time.
What makes you think energy can be created or destroyed?
Correct, as that would be infinity, with the occurrence of the inception of a 0+ time scale, 13.75 billion years ago, as the interjection of space/time.
"If time always existed then so too did mass and energy or else e=mc2 is false. C2 is only measurable as a time.
Your assumptive conclusion in point is moot, since mass-energy equivalent would only be calculable in conceptual time, as defined and described, at the inception of space/time and in the continuum of space/time.
"What makes you think energy can be created or destroyed?"
What makes you think that your logical fallacy of having constructed a straw man, in a question, as a veiled assertion, in your assumption, as to what you think, that I think, in reference/relation, to a physical law of the universe in conservation of energy, necessitates an answer from me?'Lol!
Lol, yeah, there is a difference between not believing and believing there is no God. I myself find myself just not believing. Believing there is no God is just as valid and possible as believing there is, whereas my "belief" has no standpoint basically.
@gklr Wrong. There is such thing as "not X." That is what YOUR belief is. Let me school you in Logic since you don't seem to understand. X = God ~ = Not Christians Believe in: X [God] You believe in: ~X [Not God] Both of which are conclusions. Both which require premises (evidence) in order to validate them. Whereas my belief (or really a lack thereof) has no conclusion to prove. Is there anything else you don't understand or will you actually be one of the few cool people and concede?
"" Let me school you in Logic since you don't seem to understand. X = God ~ = Not Christians Believe in: X [God] You believe in: ~X [Not God] ""
Hilarious "logic". You cannot apply the logical operator NOT to anything other than a proposition (eg: it is not the case that the earth has water) or a propositional function (X is not Y). Not god is not anything, it is just gibberish. God is not a proposition or propositional function, nor is believe or theist.
Saying you lack belief is not talking about you. It also is not something you can prove. It is a belief about what you are not, and not even a statement about anything you are.
Not god, not X where X is anything, is never a thing. No such thing exists.
When you say (not god), then you are trying to use NOT with something other than a proposition or a propositional function which is just silly. Violating the laws of logic is not quite schooling me on logic.
Only claims of truth require proof. No belief is proven or it wouldn't be a belief at all. All beliefs are possibly false and why atheism allows the possibility of a god.
"Believing there is no God is just as valid and possible as believing there is"
I believe there is no god like I believe that tommorow 1+1=2 will be true. I can justify it using inductive logic. I know tommorow does not exist now and it is justifiable to believe in something you know does not exist. It is not justifiable to believe that tomorrow 1+1 will not equate 2.
We don't need belief to show many proposed gods as nonexistent. Atheism is overrated.
@FossilEYES1 ".causality of existence and life itself."
Atheism has nothing to do with the 'start of the universe'. Its the belief there are no gods. Atheism is not cosmology or anything else other than what it is.
You don;t know what your talking about or your lying.
That is just your denial complex rearing it's delusional head again.
Atheism in practice is the fantastic desire to wish that the causality of the universe and life came about as the result of random chance, accidental happenstance.
Staunch atheist prove themselves as being the epitome of hypocritical reverse false attribution.
This is evidenced when they proclaim in fallacious authoritative arrogance "God does not exist.
'That is just your denial complex rearing it's delusional head again'
Well, prove me wrong, direct me to any dictionary, academic logical forum (university) or etymological document that says atheism is what you say it is.
"This is evidenced when they proclaim in fallacious authoritative arrogance "God does not exist."
Any conceptualized object can't be proven to not exist. Any idiot knows that. Obviously logic is not something that you have a decent grasp on.
Your denial of this fact proves you are delusional, head and all.
It need not be subjectively defined by "dictionary, academic logical forum, entomological documentation," 0 deflective one of many.
Prove me wrong by providing an objective, scientific answer for causality of the universe and life having come into existence as result of it's own accord, by random, accidental chance?
"Any idiot knows that."
Then why do atheistic fools proclaim this idiocy perpetually?
You answer lies with the reason some theists claim to KNOW a god exists
"Your denial of this fact proves you are delusional"
I'm afraid i'm not the one making claims about something I cannot know. I believe there are no Gods. Belief is by neccessity, possibly false. I surrender the fact I might be wrong. However it is not up to me to prove some conceptualized object does not exist. If you think it is, your foolish.
"You answer lies with the reason some theists claim to KNOW a god exists"
One claim I do make in confidence, pertinent to the existence of God is that he must exist since it is common logic in sound judgment to realize, there is no other possible explanation in alternative to the complexity and order of the universe and life.
The Creator as portrayed and represented in the person of Jesus is far more credible and authoritative than absolutely no idea in explanation whatsoever.
@FossilEYES1 "more credible and authoritative than absolutely no idea in explanation whatsoever."
Ceation stories are logical childs play, think about it. Many creationists posit god started time and the whole bit. This means god existed before time. This means, to prove the story true, it must be proven that something can exist for no amount of time. Sillyness.
"Creation stories are logical child's play"... Your defense fails against my assertion that you are stymied for lack of even a negligible guess as to what mechanism was responsible for your random, non- purposed, accidental, chance order of the universe and life ideology.
You could never prove this monumental absurdity true.
You cannot go back in time, therefore you could never show the sequential actions and the source of mechanism responsible employing the scientific method.
@sashajw1234 A contributory facet to your flawed logic is having an overactive fantasy by misconception to the reality of the limitations of science.
My assertion is corroborated by your ignorant demand and expectation to think there could exist scientific evidence in explanation for that which could have only resulted by Supernatural causality.
Your bias dismisses the very real possibility of ordered, purposed reason in creation in spite of having no possible alternative in explanation.
@FossilEYES1 "Your bias dismisses the very real possibility "
Your conscious want of the unprovable to be true dismisses you claim to reason with impunity. You are free to have your beliefs, but if you can't prove them true, then calling others deluded for not agreeing with you shows brilliantly what your argument consists of.
Your argument basically says.
Proposition X is true because no one can prove it false. Obviously when theology grabs hold, theres no hope. I wish you well.
That is just your false attribution rearing it's deceptive deflections again.
What you fail to recognize is that faith in theistic Supernatural causality has inherent impunity for the fact of it being the first, only and default position.
If you wish to refute, disavow, discredit, the purposed Supernatural proposition, you must employ scientific methodology of observable, repeatable testing showing a natural mechanism responsible for the inception of the universe and life.
@FossilEYES1 "What you fail to recognize is that faith in theistic Supernatural causality has inherent impunity for the fact of it being the first, only and default position."
A said B first so A must be correct. LOL
This is why talking with people who are devoid of all logical assessment skills is pointless. WE cannot disprove proposition X if the evidence needed to prove it true or false does not exist yet.
Your lying about what atheism is, further talk is pointless.
@sashajw1234 " A said B first so A must be correct. LOL
Yours is the typical, falsely ascribe your own bias take as being the argument of your prevailing opponent.
Your distorted refutation fails for ignorance of the premier attribute innate to the human species in knowledge that creation is a Supernatural event., requiring a Supernatural Creator.
Atheism is overruling innate sense in sound judgment to choose belief in the causality of the universe and life against the fixed laws of nature.
@FossilEYES1 "Your distorted refutation fails for ignorance of the premier attribute innate to the human species in knowledge that creation is a Supernatural event., requiring a Supernatural Creator."
THat is the funniest thing I have ever read. Belief in creation is an inate attribute? HEh. Your Hilarious.
If I had made a subjective statement , you might have reason to deem mine as "the funniest thing you ever heard."
It is an objective statement in fact, corroborated by the oldest ancient recorded history, pertinent to all of earliest mankind.
Yours is a subjectively invalid bout with humor.
The absurdity of the universe coming into ordered existence and complexity of life, by random, accidental, non-purposed chance, is the unscientifically bombastic, new brat on the block.
"The absurdity of the universe coming into ordered existence"
Is absurd subjected to your opinion.
"complexity of life, by random, accidental, non-purposed chance"
Random mutations but non-random selection? C'mon man, even when I was a theist I didn't strawman and act as dishonest as you are acting now. If you have any decency, I suggest you stop throwing around starmen and begin posing some serious questions/answers, not "if there is no natural explanation now, supernatural is the only way".
@TurboDally "not "if there is no natural explanation now, supernatural is the only way" Fundies are hilarious at reason and logic. Blows my mind sometimes:)
According to your opinion, is it empirical knowledge supported by scientific methodology of observability, testability and repeatably?
No explanation on your part to offer, or refutation to my assertion, with no negligible guess as to how the universe and life could have come about, other than by Supernatural means, renders your position as faith in absurdity.
"No explanation on your part to offer, or refutation to my assertion"
An assertion which is presented with no evidence whatsoever.
"no negligible guess as to how the universe and life could have come about, other than by Supernatural means, renders your position as faith in absurdity."
I am not the one who believes in supernatural means, I rely on evidence hence I have no faith.
@TurboDally "An assertion which is presented with no evidence whatsoever"
On the contrary.
Mine is the assertion, which you reject while making no assertion in defense of your fatally flawed non- reason ideology.
This you do, in spite of inability to offer an iota in guess to explain a random, non-purposed, accidental causality, pertinent to the unfathomable complexity of the universe and life.
"On the contrary. Mine is the assertion, which you reject"
On the basis of lack of evidence. I don't have to accept your "if you can't explain it naturally it must be god" mentality. Assertions without evidence are nothing.
"This you do, in spite of inability to offer.."
I do this due to putting things in perspective. Now leave me be! As an atheist my life has no meaning, thus I must jump off this cliff designed for suicide jumps, aided with the cleverly placed gravitaional constant! Le'splat!
"I don't have to accept your "if you can't explain it naturally it must be god mentality"
You would accept it if you don't wish to further expose yourself as self-deluded in a faith of the, could never be proven or known.
The evidence you overlook is definably, everything in existence in the universe. Your blind faith to reconcile the miraculous ongoing event of the ordered universe as caused by natural means, spontaneously, of it's own accord, contradicts the evidence.
"I do this due to putting things in perspective. Now leave me be!"
Putting things in perspective as a statement in itself is invalid as "evidence" or retort. It is nullified by ambiguous, vague, non-authoritative subjectivity, while displaying a symptom of your delusional denial syndrome.
Good luck with the jump Geronimo!
There are figurative heaps of atheist corpses at the cliff base, effectively committing spiritual suicide.
"Throw that, tired, expected, defensive, deceptive, atheistic 'How To Respond To Theism' handbook in the nearest trash bin available."
There are theists who are more honest and worthy of discussion than someone like you who constantly refers to strawmen and projection.
"Notice, I never said; "no natural explanation now."
Doesn't matter, your position is quite clear. Just because X has not been explained natualistically yet does not justify slipping in "supernatural" causes.
Mine is irrefutably accurate, and effectivly objective observation, in the description of atheism.
Yours is convenient omission in partial, ignorant, and bias false disclosure, by intentional deception.
Atheism is the individual free will choice of individual to partake in the faith of the universe having come about by accidental, random chance, in spite of no empirical proof of knowledge to this absurdity.
They do this while choosing to disbelieve any God/s are responsible.
I noticed that you conveniently left out "The Creator as portrayed and represented in the person of Jesus is far more credible",
This is the dominant point of my statement.
It is no wonder you have such poor skills in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis when you deceptively take what I say out of context and fallaciously use it to attempt to win a point at any cost.
You did this in a sleazy attempt to divert from the main point which your bias renders you unwilling to face.
@FossilEYES1 "This is the dominant point of my statement." It doesn't matter Fossil, no creation story or god can be proven true. IF something cannot be proven true, then no matter how plausible it may seem to the individual, it might be false.
FOr something to be true. It must be PROVEN true. It something has not been proven true. THen it is not yet true and could very easily end up being false. Mapping thoughts to reality Fossil, reason, keeps a mind grounded.
Exhibiting written testimony of numerous individuals, having no reason to lie, and who corroborate happenings that harmonize with one another, is verification.
You can't be that delusional to deny the impact of Jesus as evidenced by historical adherents in belief.
Belief in Jesus is the most monumental landmark persevering faith the world has ever experienced.
More foolishness. 'Beyond resonable doubt' is not proof that something is true.
"You can't be that delusional to deny the impact of Jesus as evidenced by historical adherents in belief."
Oh i never said that, doesn't mean theres a God though. It can very easily mean people are stupid. THe most popular ideology does not equate truth. By current trends, Islam will soon be the most popular religion. Will Allah then be the 1 true God?
@sashajw1234 What it means is innumerable individuals are satisfied with the testimony of the life, words and miracles of Jesus as credible.
Your logic fails for intentional ignorance of the numerous written testimonies, documented persecution, and tenacity of believers to prevail and thrive in spite of the unequaled obstacles in opposition.
"It can very easily mean" people are stupid for not believing.
If the gospels are true, Jesus would far supersede and disqualify all other religions.
@FossilEYES1 "If the gospels are true...................."
Congratulations Fossil, you just joined the reasonable world. Believing in the message of Jesus is not 'wrong'. Saying 'If' recognizes the possibility that the Gospels could be false in their mataphysical claims.
I have been a member of the reasonable world since I accepted the reasonable reality of ; In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
In actuality, I have absolutely no doubt that the virgin birth, words in authoritative claim, miracles as proof of Jesus authority, Crucifixion, Resurrection,second coming of Jesus of Nazareth etc.are accurate and reliable historical and prophetic truth.
I believe the gospels and New Testament are contextually, accurate truth.
I said "if" for the reason that you have no evidence for natural causality of the inseption and sustinence of the universe and life.
My point was to juxtapose the attestation of Jesus to all other reported accounts, in evidence of Gods interaction with the human race and any atheistic non-hypothesis in explaination of the exsistence of the universe and life.
"FOr something to be true, It must be PROVEN true"
This your previous contradictory comment, is a logical fallacy.
@FossilEYES1 "This your previous contradictory comment, is a logical fallacy"
Nope, such things as true and false are labels applied to propositions when the requirements to apply such labels have been met. Belief is another label. If a proposition cannot be proven true or false, it is not recognized as a truth or a falsehood. WHat it is, is a belief. An belief can be true, or false, however it is not either until proof arrives. Nice try, but no cigar
Your failure to qualify your bias subjective view of the criteria, falsely implying that truth rightly classified by fixed standard requirement, is beyond laughable and a failed say nothing bluff.
What a magnanimous nothing you have added to your ever-growing heap.
As to your "nice try but no cigar" bit, do you remember the coyote and road runner cartoons?
You remind me of the acme exploding cigar bit, in blundering coyote fashion.
"You remind me of the acme exploding cigar bit, in blundering coyote fashion"
LOL, hilarious comming from somebody who does not understand the difference between belief, truth. and falsehood.
Anyway, Turbo's right, I retract my erroneous conclusion that you have joined the reasonable world. WHen you understand the difference between belief and truth. I'd be up for another discussion. Till then. BE well.
It is merely the metaphorical analogy, as to your continuous fallacious attribution, accurately applicable to your fatally flawed faith in the, everything came into existence of it's own accord ideology.
Your responses repeatably blow up in your face.
Your bombastic bluffs claiming to know the difference between truth and belief utterly fails.
It fails because you are in denial of the fact that you rely on faith in the forever scientifically imposable to prove.
You and Turbo, cutting and running for lack of ability to defend, or even present your position, is my first double.
Regardless of your rejection of reason , logic and truth, I trust there will be those who are Wise and will reconsider that atheism is a faith in the forever absent of answer.
it is foolish to wish to believe there is a natural explanation for the causality of the universe and complexity of life, with the only evidence in proof being against it. ____bless you!
@sashajw1234 "Supernatural purposed creation is the only remaining option--sashajw1234
Lol, your out to lunch.
It would be better to be out to lunch, than to be emaciated for lack of answer and to believe in a non-reasoned, non-purposed, accidental, random chance occurrence, as being responsible for the ordered existence and complexity of the universe and life.
I say; "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, as being the only choice.
I challenge you to prove yourself correct and me wrong, by offering a viable alternative in explanation for the existence, sustaining, and maintenance of the universe and complexity of life?
@FossilEYES1 How can i disprove that statement when you have not proved it yet? One only disproves something which has false proof or faulty logic behind it. Your belief in a creator has no substance. Reality itself is no proof of any creator. I cannot prove myself correct, and I cannot prove you wrong, because you have not yet provided any evidence for what you believe. What better way to avoid your belief being challenged than putting it outside the reach of science. Suspiciously convenient.
God is Spirit, therefore he is not quantifiable nor quantifiable by scientific methodology, being limited for lack of ability to observe and test he who is the infinite Creator/God.
"What better way to avoid your belief being challenged than putting it outside the reach of science. Suspiciously convenient."
Your belief in accidental, random, non-purposed causality of the ordered universe and life coming into existence of it's own accord has no naturalistic mechanism which could possibly be responsible for it.
If you were knowledgeable as to the historical and archeological evidence in proof, you would recognize, your point is moot.
Islam is proven fallacious by it's refuted claim; "The Old and New Testaments were corrupted and changed, necessitating the koran as allah's final revelation."
The Dead Sea Scrolls and oldest codex manuscripts of New Testament Scripture prove this and Islam as a farce.
Beyond reasonable doubt' is not proof that something is true."
If your own standard is applied to your atheistic ideology, you are proven embarrassingly hypocritical by your proclamation.
You could never prove as true, a natural cause for the universe since you weren't there.
Therefore, you could never know the truth as to whether the universe was caused by spontaneous, random accidental and non-purposed chance, or by ordered and purposed means, by a Supernatural Creator.
You believe you lack a belief in God, but I lack the belief that you really believe that you lack a belief in God, and so i believe that you only believe you lack a belief, but you don't REALLY lack a belief.
these are the last days he spoke about indeed, and none of the other times in history that the crazies said it, all those other times. yes these crazies like this guy really mean it this time. look out. better go to church and fork over lots of money or else some jealous vengeful god might delight in torturing u for ever and ever for shits and giggles cuz he can after u die if u dont.
Belief that an unknown entity of unknown character and unknown abilities made everything in an unknown way for the purpose of loving us is not actually knowledge.
knowledge goes like this: gravity decreases by the square of the distance. Then you can calculate how a planet orbits the sun.
What can you calculate, predict or understand by knowing that god exists.
Do i have an afterlife? Do i have a soul? Is there a heaven? Lets assume god exists. We still cant answer one of these questions.
And what are you? A regular whore? You're obviously above her. I can tell by the fact that you took notice in her, and she probably knows nothing of your existence. What kind of cult does an atheist join? Does this "cult" just sit in a circle, repeating "we believe in nothing!"? Sounds fucking eventful. "If you join in the next week, you'll be eligible for some really nifty door prizes, like a decoder ring, and candy bars..."
to the point of; 'cult that sits around and says "we believe in nothing' in regards to atheists.
Deity and religion are not the sum total of human experience and endeavor. Atheists do not say 'we believe in nothing' they only say ( and generalizing here) "we do not believe in god.' Atheists have beliefs, just no belief in deity.
Absurdly misrepresenting atheists will only serve to make you look foolish, Indeed, I'd avoid it no matter who you're debating.
You're basing this off of a joke? So, they don't joke in bars and clubs? And, you mention my age, like it matters terribly. I take it you're older than me, but yet, your grammar, punctuation, and spelling suck. So, I suppose that means no one takes you seriously online, but in clubs, you're the highlight? Is that how it works? Education means nothing when you're out on the town, eh? You've opened my eyes to so many things... Wait, I don't recall ever going to a bar or club with you...
So, with that being said, how do you know who takes me seriously? I guess they prefer people with sticks up their asses. And this is all assuming I translated your comment right. Took me a few times to read it. I hope you're really some eight year old, because if not, go back to school. Take English, and for the love of something, pay attention.
please answer me this and be honest with yourself why are you trying this hard to proove that there is no god ,i had the same problem with my religion ,and at the end i understood that i wanted to understand (my conclusion was all religions are fake and the true one got no name and it is kidness love and forgivness ),that was my problem .i am not saying that will be yours but i am curious to know .maybe mankind needs a super power maybe it exists but you what are you aiming for
Rational skeptics are not trying to disprove god. Science is not trying to disprove god. The burden is for those that claim god is fact to prove it so.
Rational skeptics merely reject theism (a positive declaration that deity is fact) due to the lack of evidence for the position.
Theism is not god. If there is a god, evidence suggests that current theistic notions do not accurately reflect the reality for which he's presumed to be responsible. Disproving religion is not disproving god.
The ones that have tried really hard killed them selves. They now know the answer. She's doing what every average person does: Defending her beliefs (or lack there of).
And usually when we get to this part in the argument theists want to nail down atheists and agnostics to a positive belief so they can be tied to something as equally subjective as faith .. like mysticism.
The favorite device for this is the big bang. Let me go ahead and cut it off at the knees right now ..
The big bang only directly explains the expanding universe it does not directly declare where all matter/energy originated.
no a real fantasy would be that the universe came from nowhere. That is what you believe right.
Normankay 3 months ago
i hope god showes he's self to u but i dont think u r a bad person i think that your just u even though i dont know u i still think of every one as they are not becuz of what they believe in bcuz its not right :D
teniya15 7 months ago
If the definition of a word is mutable, meaning is not possible .. nor can logic be applied if definitions are not certain. The ability to precisely convey a concept depends on semantics.
MindRefined 7 months ago
Yo bitch I want you to respond to my comments make a video like the little kunt you are! Make a response bitch! Make a response!
123couchman 8 months ago
A lack of belief in god or not believing in god or no god is a way for creationists to argue the point.
This is because the creationists have no way of proving that there is no god except through a man authored book called "the bible".
maurieer 9 months ago
Lacking a belief in God. Not believing in God. Believing that there is no God. Sounds the same to me. I think people just like to complicate things when it's really just this simple. It's the same thing.
redshieldshatterer 9 months ago
@redshieldshatterer "Lacking a belief in God. Not believing in God. Believing that there is no God. Sounds the same to me."
The first two are the same and the third is different.
There are agnostic atheists who don't believe in any god but don't claim that there can be certainty of their non-existence.
There are gnostic atheists who don't believe in any god and claim that there can be certainty of their non-existence.
The latter then maybe "believes there's no god". The first doesn't.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
" I want to know the thoughts of God. " - Albert Einstein
salomon109 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@salomon109 "" I want to know the thoughts of God. " - Albert Einstein"
But not the thoughts of the Judeo-Christian god as Einstein apparently was a deist. (And a "cultural jew" of course)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
Belief suggests a faith-based thinking. Atheism is a scientific-based way of thinking where hard evidence and facts are used to describe the universe. I'm afraid you misunderstand a LACK of belief as a belief in something. Atheists don't believe anything, they UNDERSTAND the FACTS and evidence for how reality works.
superniall50 1 year ago
The difference is far from semantic. Atheism is not a faith preposition. I don't believe there are no gods, I don't believe in gods. No belief is not the same as a belief of not. Bald is not a hair colour.
When you compare theist and atheist positions as beliefs, you are saying that subjective and personal impression trumps objective evidence and reason. This might be true in matters of the heart, but not about the nature of the universe.
Xoltaric 1 year ago
All you need to believe in is yourself. You're the only one who's going to get you through this life.
TronDevlin 1 year ago
religion haters often claim to be atheists to appear more intelligent or educated, this seems to be an underlying factor in most, even more think they have been abused by the teachings of the church(mabey so on that one huh?) it becomes a word game that no one wins, we just manipulate the language until it trips one or the other up, you know.
movadoband 1 year ago
I don't feel it's a play on words. I myself see a big difference in the sentence: "I believe there is no God" (an Active Belief) and the sentence: "I don't believe in a God" (the rejection of an Active Belief)
If I say I don't believe in a God, I'm simply rejecting a beliefsystem, not obtaining a new. If I say "I believethere is no God", I'm taking on a new belief system...
HKragh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HKragh,
When you say you do not believe in a god, you are not saying that you have rejected anything. You have not said anything about you at all. We cannot imply from "you do not believe" that you exist. When you did not exist you also did not believe.
Nor can you prove it is true, this saying you do not believe is a belief itself as well as about what you aren't and not about what you are.
gklr 1 year ago
Anytime, should you question your "stance" on the existence of God, and want to chat about it,, let me know.
carnrick 1 year ago
If there is ever a time that you question your beliefs, let me know, I would be happy to chat
carnrick 1 year ago
sorry - that is Ravi Zacharias
clothedwiththesun 1 year ago
dear lady - on youtube please look up Ravi Zachariah ...' What does it mean to be human? Part 1.' ... i hope you may see something in his words that you dared not ever hope to be true..... :)
clothedwiththesun 1 year ago
As Ryushai said, these are two different statements. One is intellectually honest, and the other is not. I don't know that invisible unicorns don't exist, but I have zero reason to believe that they do.
Hundreds of years ago I could have insisted that there were no such thing as a black swan, but I'd be violating Ocham's Razor and ultimately proven wrong. Lacking belief is an intellectually honest statement that does not make claims beyond the evidence.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"is intellectually honest, and the other is not. I don't know that invisible unicorns don't exist, "
So how intellectually honest is it to spin "I believe there is no god" to "I know there is no god"?
"Lacking belief is an intellectually honest statement"
There is no such thing as a lack of anything. Lacking something is not a thing itself. It is not speaking about Jim to say Jim lacks something, it is speaking to what Jim does not have, which has no bearing on Jim.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr It's intellectually dishonest to spin "I believe there is no god" to "I know there is no god", I agree.
Your second explanation is incoherent. Lacking a trait is a valid part of the description of something; it adds information. If Jim lacks legs, surely we have gained information about Jim.
But I agree that the only reason that lacking a belief in something is a culturally relevant attribute is because superstitious belief is so prevalent in our society.
vargonian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vargonian,
"Lacking a trait is a valid part of the description of something; it adds information. If Jim lacks legs, surely we have gained information about Jim."
You have said what Jim does not have. Saying "Jim does not have legs" says what is not the case about Jim, not what is the case about Jim. "Not have legs" is not what Jim does. "No legs" is not a thing.
Not cannot be applied to legs or beliefs, only to propositions and propositional functions.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vargonian,
"But I agree that the only reason that lacking a belief in something is a culturally relevant attribute is because superstitious belief is so prevalent in our society."
Lacking belief is not anything. There is no such thing. Why you would say you agree that I say such a thing is what interests me here, lol. I am quite clear on this issue. There is no such thing as a lack of belief and it does not speak about atheists to say they lack belief.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
A lack of something isn't anything. Lacking a 32nd head is not a trait of anyone. Jim lacked legs in the year 1200 when Jim did not exist, so no, it says nothing about Jim.
Not is a not a statement of identity, which means we can talk about nonexistent things and say what they are not. eg: the present King of France does not exist. That is true, and not about the present King of France or we have shown him to exist. A truth about an object proves it exists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr As I illustrated before, the lacking of something is still descriptive. I gave you an example. Jack lacks legs. You have now gained information about Jack, have you not? Lacking a 32nd head also adds information. If you know that I lack a 32nd head, you now know that I have at most 31 heads. That is information. If you were to try to draw a picture of me, you'd know that, despite all other unknowns, you would have to draw *at most* 31 heads. How can you refute this plain fact?
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"As I illustrated before, the lacking of something is still descriptive"
Never. Saying X lacks Y is not talking about X nor does it describe anything. Descriptions refer to things that exist. Saying X lacks Y says what is not the case, not what is the case.... about X. What is not the case, is not what is real, not what exists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You continue to make these naked assertions without addressing my examples. So let's face the issue head on, without any evasiveness:
Yes or no: If I have an apple in a box, and you know that this apple is not red, do you have any information about this apple beyond if I hadn't told you anything about it besides the fact that it's an apple?
Yes or no: If you were to draw an apple fitting either description, would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way?
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"You continue to make these naked assertions without addressing my examples."
False and false. Show which assertion you consider naked. The only way you could possibly say I did not address your examples would be to not see them below. You have given information about what is not the case and said that IS the case. Is does not equate is not, and is your logical error.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Ah okay, so if I have two groups of 1,000,000 random people tasked with drawing an apple with crayons. One of the groups knows that the apple isn't red. By your logic, I should see a statistically identical distribution of apple colors in the two sets of drawings? Yes or no?
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
If you tell me to draw and apple that is not red, I can leave the page blank and be correct. The apple that does not exist is not red.
If I drew a yellow apple then "not red" is not a property of that drawing.
"By your logic"
I don't have my own logic, the topic is propositional logic.
"I should see a statistically identical distribution of apple colors in the two sets of drawings?"
I wouldn't expect that in any group of drawings. Identical only applies to concepts.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Please avoid trying to evade the question. It's very simple, and we can work from some assumptions. Assume in our apple-drawing example that each person did use a single color of crayon to draw a single apple. In the "not red" group, would you expect to see a higher or lower number of apples drawn with a red crayon? You can nitpick the example all you want but it's a red herring.
I will reiterate: This is an extremely simple question to answer.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"Please avoid trying to evade the question"
I did no such thing and answered with clarity.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
You cannot assume from "the apple is not red" that the apple exists.... because when the apple did not exist then it was not red.
Not red does not exist. Not X, no matter what X is, does not exist. Where X is anything, not X is not anything.... no matter what X is.
Make X anything at all, not X is not anything at all. Nothing IS (not red). Things ARE NOT (red). Red is something you can be, not red isn't anything at all.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
Why ask "yes or no" when I have shown why all "yes/no" questions are fallacious? All yes/no questions are false dichotomies and I said why below.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"I should see a statistically identical distribution of apple colors in the two sets of drawings? "
You would see more red apples in one group than the other, I would expect. And of every red apple you see, each of them is not blue. Not blue however is not a property of the red apples, it is not anything.
There is no such thing as "not blue". They are also not the number 22, not Jupiter and not believers in god... which says nothing about the apple.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Thank you, I'm sorry I didn't catch this response earlier. Correct, you would almost certainly see more red apples in one group. But if "not red" "says nothing" about the apple, this implies that it adds no information to the description of the apple. But if it added no information, there would be no basis for a distinction. But clearly there would be a distinction, thus "not red" is descriptive. Q.E.D.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"But if it added no information, there would be no basis for a distinction"
Saying what something is not, says nothing about that something at all. When no apples existed at all, then all apples were not red. I just said nothing about all apples, I said what they are not.
The present King of France does not exist, is not red, is not a believer in god, is not an atheist, is not a theist, is not anything. I have said 6 things there, all true, none of it true about the pKoF.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
By saying that the present King of France is not red or not a believer in god, I have said what is not the case about the present King of France. I have not said what is the case about the pKoF.
If I stated a truth about the pKoF, then I would prove the pKoF exists. Saying the pKoF does not exist, if true (it is) and about the pKoF, then I have proven the pKoF exists.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"Yes or no"
All yes/no questions are false dichotomies. When I ask you if you would like ice cream and you say "yes I want ice cream" then you are answering the question. When you answer "no, I don't want ice cream" then you have answered to what you do not want when I asked what you want. You'd need to reply "I want no ice cream" to answer the question, otherwise it remains unanswered. You didn't want ice cream when you did not exist, so saying that does not talk about you.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vargonian,
"Yes or no: If I have an apple in a box, and you know that this apple is not red, do you have any information about this apple beyond if I hadn't told you anything about it besides the fact that it's an apple?"
No. You know nothing about the apple other than it is an apple. Saying "I have an apple in a box" is at least talking about the apple. Saying the apple is not red does not speak about what the apple is. It speaks about what the apple is not.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"Yes or no: If you were to draw an apple fitting either description, would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way?"
Not at all, you have said nothing about the apple other than it is an apple (about the apple) and that it is not red (not about the apple).
Not red is not a colour I have to use to depict the apple. Not red does not exist, there is no such thing as "not something". When you misread "not red" to be about what the apple is, you have an error.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"would the "not red" description affect your drawing in any way"
Not red is not a description of anything. Not red is not anything at all.
Not cannot be applied to anything other than a proposition (Greg is alive or Greg is not alive) or propositional function (X is Y or X is not Y). You cannot "not" a belief, red, theists etc. as they are not propositions or propositional functions.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Please demonstrate how "alive or not alive" is a valid proposition as compared to "red or not red", if you assume an established objective definition of "red" (e.g. a certain measurement range with a spectrometer). Currently it appears you have a differentiation without a difference.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"Please demonstrate how "alive or not alive" is a valid proposition as compared to "red or not red""
not alive isn't what anything is, it is what things are not. Not red is not what anything is, it is what things are not. Not alive is no more a thing, than not red is a thing.
Everything is red or not red, even things that do not exist are not red. They are not, red. That does not say they ARE (not red). Nothing IS (not red). They are not (red). Red is something you can be.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said:
"Not cannot be applied to anything other than a proposition (Greg is alive or Greg is not alive)"
"You cannot "not" a belief, red, theists etc. as they are not propositions..."
And now you claim that alive/not alive and red/not red fall into the same category.
I agree with your tangential line of reasoning which amounts to "'nothing' isn't something", but it's not what we're arguing. We're arguing descriptiveness.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
Not is a logical operator. It can only be applied to propositions and propositional functions.
Greg is not red is a proposition. Greg is not alive is a proposition. "Not red" is not a proposition. Not alive is not a proposition. Not red or not alive are not anything.
When I make the proposition that Greg is not red, I have not said "Greg is (not red). I have said "Greg is not (red)." I have said what is not the case about Greg, not what is the case about Greg.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Sure, so then it's clearly just semantics, and this is reaching the boundaries of Poe's Law. By your reasoning, the statement that I "lack belief" in a deity can easily be phrased in a way that's palatable to you. "It is not the case that vargonian has a belief in God." Acceptable?
Please refresh my memory for clarity: Were you originally making the argument that a person either believes a god exists or doesn't exist, and nothing in between?
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"the statement that I "lack belief" in a deity can easily be phrased in a way that's palatable to you. "It is not the case that vargonian has a belief in God." Acceptable?"
Yes they say the same thing. We are saying what is not the case about vargonian, or what is not the case about atheists. And what is not the case about atheists is not what IS the case about atheists. To say atheists lack belief in a god is true, about what atheist are not, not true about what atheists are.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"Were you originally making the argument that a person either believes a god exists or doesn't exist, and nothing in between?"
No not at all.
Everyone believes a god exists (theist) or not (nontheist)
Everyone believes that no god exists (atheist) or not (nonatheist)
Babies neither believe there is no god nor believe there is a god. They are neither atheists nor theists. Are they "inbetween"? I wouldn't use "inbetween" no. They are nontheists and nonatheists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Okay, that clears up your position, though it's still nitpicking semantics. As plainly shown with the apple example, you can clearly gain information by specifying something's limits (e.g. "not red", "less than 12" (not greater than 11), not flammable.
It also appears you're using a different version of "atheist" than the literal "without belief in a deity" meaning that most self-identified skeptical atheists seem to subscribe to.
vargonian 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"I gave you an example. Jack lacks legs. You have now gained information about Jack, have you not? "
Nope. Jack had no legs when Jack did not exist. When Jack did not exist there are no truths for Jack. A truth about an object proves that object exists. Saying Jack lacks legs does not say that Jack even exists. You know nothing about Jack at all, by knowing what is not the case about Jack.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vargonian,
"Lacking a 32nd head also adds information. If you know that I lack a 32nd head, you now know that I have at most 31 heads. "
False. When you did not exist and had no head, you also had no 32nd head.
gklr 1 year ago
@vargonian,
"That is information. If you were to try to draw a picture of me, you'd know that, despite all other unknowns, you would have to draw *at most* 31 heads. How can you refute this plain fact?"
It is information about what is not the case. It is not a fact. Facts are properties of material objects. For my blue pen, the blueness is a fact about the pen.
gklr 1 year ago
cristians are trying to kill Atheists with semantics.
panterguy 1 year ago
(Looks at comment section) ...>_>...(Thumbs up and leaves)
GodofCider 1 year ago
Comment removed
lhurien 1 year ago
you gonna become muslim. You know how? at first, you do not wanna know anything associated with islam because of the media portrayal of islam- you do not even wanna think of it. one day you say to yourself, hey what a hack, I am smart girl, I know what is good and what is bad, it wont harm me to read few thing about islam from muslim authors on contemporary issues, and for the rest i hope to hear from you
massrerdean 1 year ago
@massrerdean No one would join a death-cult invented by a child-fucking "prophet" unless they were mentally ill..allah u snackbar!
muslimwhacker 1 year ago
@muslimwhacker may God guide you because you are person with no senses and knowledge
massrerdean 1 year ago
@massrerdean I have read the koran and the hadiths...it is a manual for hate invented by the evil fucktard m-ham-head..
muslimwhacker 1 year ago
@muslimwhacker then let the curse of God be upon those who are liars.
massrerdean 1 year ago
@massrerdean There is no god you illiterate stone-age fucktard...
muslimwhacker 1 year ago 2
@muslimwhacker you shall see
massrerdean 1 year ago
@muslimwhacker lol, ask yourself this.
What sounds dummber...
A THING created stuff..
Or... a bunch of nothing exploded and over millions of years it magically changed into people?
viper19861986 1 year ago
@viper19861986 who said anything about magic? we leave that crap to the magic THING
lukerogers 1 year ago
@viper19861986 That is what we call a strawman argument. The scientific theories that explain our existence are not magic, nor do they say things take place over mere millions of years. We're talking in billions here. Our species didn't evolve until ~14 billion years into the universe's existence, and ~4 billion years into life's existence. 4,000,000,000 years. There's nothing magic about it, they're natural processes.
Fissioninferno 1 year ago
@Fissioninferno Really? I NEVER have heard of that term before "strawman" cool :D
Well at least someone can make an adult point to someone on here :)
But really my belief is that god created stuff via some way, evolution to create all the animals maybe? who knows :) who cares! I find it funny how people can make such a big deal bout such a silly topic and they just call each other dumb.
Darn extremist! Both sides.....
viper19861986 1 year ago
@viper19861986 Yeah, a strawman argument is basically when someone argues against a position that the other side doesn't hold (evolution being magic, for one).
Usually it's not an argument about evolution itself but what many creationists/intelligent design supporters do when it comes to everything else in science (ironically while using the Internet, one of science's greatest achievements). Being ignorant of science in this day and age is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
Fissioninferno 1 year ago
@muslimwhacker Then how did finite matter create infinite matter from nothing? illiterate modern day fucktard.....
colbyrules8 1 year ago
@muslimwhacker,
I replied to this message you sent to a theist, because it is stupid.
"There is no god"
That is the belief that atheism is. Prove it true and you would end atheism.
"you illiterate"
You post written replies to illiterate people?
"stone-age fucktard"
This is not the stone age and what exactly does fucktard refer to?
Being an insulting loudmouth has nothing to do with being an atheist.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1/2
You act according to what you believe, not what you don't believe. Atheists say they "lack belief in God". They don't believe or disbelieve in God. Yet, if you defend the Bible as being true or the Christian God as the only God, they're quick to attack in order to disprove God's existence. They are behaving according to what they believe, not what they don't believe.
miket1m 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2/2
Its inconsistent to say that you lack belief in something and then behave as though you deny the existence of that something. Without admitting it, their worldview doesn't "lack belief about God"; it denies God.
miket1m 1 year ago
Some atheists or agnostics simply do not believe that the question of god or no god is important. I simply believe that there is no good reason to believe in any god. If religious people either kept quiet or did not exist, it is probably something that I would not ponder. Is that a belief system? In some ways I'd say it is.
Some atheists are insistent that no god exists. That certainly is a belief system.
garand555 1 year ago
Atheism is the denial of innate human sense, in realization of no possible natural explanation for the causality of existence and life itself.
Theism is the concession of the realization that existence could only be the result of Supernatural purposed causality.
The greatest ongoing miracle witnessed by every human is the reality of the existence of the universe.
Atheists wish to believe in a natural cause for the universe, yet are perpetually confounded for lack of any viable explanation.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1,
What proof do you have that the universe did not always exist?
How do you have time begin, when that would require an event to happen when no time existed? When was that? Before time existed is not a time? Explain.
Time cannot begin, because it requires time exists before time exists.
If time always existed then so too did mass and energy or else e=mc2 is false. C2 is only measurable as a time.
What makes you think energy can be created or destroyed?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
"What proof do you have that the universe did not always exist?"
First, the term "proof" is not applicable and incorrect when referring to empirical scientific theories.
Theories are never proved nor disproved, as a scientific theory necessitates it being falsifiable.
Next, the Big Bang cosmological model of the inception of the universe is supported by scientific evidence (empirical) observation and by the WMAP.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
Comment removed
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
"How do you have time begin, when that would require an event to happen when no time existed?"
That would be the inception of time/space, for which would be beyond logical/numerical capability to conceptualize, or quantify.
Consequently, time would not have existed theoretically, prior to the mean point of -0+ or 0.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@gklr
"When was that?"
This is estimated to have occurred 13.75 billion years ago.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@gklr
"Before time existed is not a time?"
Correct, as that would be infinity, with the occurrence of the inception of a 0+ time scale, 13.75 billion years ago, as the interjection of space/time.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@gklr
"Time cannot begin, because it requires time exists before time exists"
Incorrect...time is not but a concept, describing a certain point on a linear scale in space/time.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@gklr
"If time always existed then so too did mass and energy or else e=mc2 is false. C2 is only measurable as a time.
Your assumptive conclusion in point is moot, since mass-energy equivalent would only be calculable in conceptual time, as defined and described, at the inception of space/time and in the continuum of space/time.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@gklr
"What makes you think energy can be created or destroyed?"
What makes you think that your logical fallacy of having constructed a straw man, in a question, as a veiled assertion, in your assumption, as to what you think, that I think, in reference/relation, to a physical law of the universe in conservation of energy, necessitates an answer from me?'Lol!
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
Lol, yeah, there is a difference between not believing and believing there is no God. I myself find myself just not believing. Believing there is no God is just as valid and possible as believing there is, whereas my "belief" has no standpoint basically.
IconoclasticFun 1 year ago
@IconoclasticFun,
"Lol, yeah, there is a difference between not believing and believing there is no God."
Yep there sure is. One exists and one doesn't. Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
No matter what X is, there is no such thing as "not X".
"Believing there is no God is just as valid and possible as believing there is"
False. I believe there is no god and justify that quite a lot better than anyone maintaining there is a god, I simply realize it as a belief.
gklr 1 year ago
IconoclasticFun 1 year ago
@IconoclasticFun,
"There is such thing as "not X.""
No there isn't. Impossible. I gave you the proof. Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Where X is yellow, not X, or not yellow is not anything.
Where X is Jupiter, not X, or not Jupiter is not anything.
Where X is believe in god, not X, or not believe in god is not anything.
Where X is theist, not X, or not theist, is not anything.
Where X is a proposed god, not X, or not proposed god, is not anything.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IconoclasticFun,
"" Let me school you in Logic since you don't seem to understand. X = God ~ = Not Christians Believe in: X [God] You believe in: ~X [Not God] ""
Hilarious "logic". You cannot apply the logical operator NOT to anything other than a proposition (eg: it is not the case that the earth has water) or a propositional function (X is not Y). Not god is not anything, it is just gibberish. God is not a proposition or propositional function, nor is believe or theist.
gklr 1 year ago
@IconoclasticFun,
Saying you lack belief is not talking about you. It also is not something you can prove. It is a belief about what you are not, and not even a statement about anything you are.
gklr 1 year ago
@IconoclasticFun,
Not god, not X where X is anything, is never a thing. No such thing exists.
When you say (not god), then you are trying to use NOT with something other than a proposition or a propositional function which is just silly. Violating the laws of logic is not quite schooling me on logic.
Only claims of truth require proof. No belief is proven or it wouldn't be a belief at all. All beliefs are possibly false and why atheism allows the possibility of a god.
gklr 1 year ago
@IconoclasticFun,
"Believing there is no God is just as valid and possible as believing there is"
I believe there is no god like I believe that tommorow 1+1=2 will be true. I can justify it using inductive logic. I know tommorow does not exist now and it is justifiable to believe in something you know does not exist. It is not justifiable to believe that tomorrow 1+1 will not equate 2.
We don't need belief to show many proposed gods as nonexistent. Atheism is overrated.
gklr 1 year ago
Atheism is the denial of innate human sense, in realization of no possible natural explanation for the causality of existence and life itself.
Theism is the concession of the realization that existence could only be the result of Supernatural purposed causality.
The greatest ongoing miracle witnessed by every human is the reality of the existence of the universe.
Atheists wish to believe in a natural cause for the universe, yet are perpetually confounded for lack of any viable explanation.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 ".causality of existence and life itself."
Atheism has nothing to do with the 'start of the universe'. Its the belief there are no gods. Atheism is not cosmology or anything else other than what it is.
You don;t know what your talking about or your lying.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
Wrong.
That is just your denial complex rearing it's delusional head again.
Atheism in practice is the fantastic desire to wish that the causality of the universe and life came about as the result of random chance, accidental happenstance.
Staunch atheist prove themselves as being the epitome of hypocritical reverse false attribution.
This is evidenced when they proclaim in fallacious authoritative arrogance "God does not exist.
This, while in perpetual stymied void of answer.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1
'That is just your denial complex rearing it's delusional head again'
Well, prove me wrong, direct me to any dictionary, academic logical forum (university) or etymological document that says atheism is what you say it is.
"This is evidenced when they proclaim in fallacious authoritative arrogance "God does not exist."
Any conceptualized object can't be proven to not exist. Any idiot knows that. Obviously logic is not something that you have a decent grasp on.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
Your denial of this fact proves you are delusional, head and all.
It need not be subjectively defined by "dictionary, academic logical forum, entomological documentation," 0 deflective one of many.
Prove me wrong by providing an objective, scientific answer for causality of the universe and life having come into existence as result of it's own accord, by random, accidental chance?
"Any idiot knows that."
Then why do atheistic fools proclaim this idiocy perpetually?
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "Then why do atheistic fools......."
You answer lies with the reason some theists claim to KNOW a god exists
"Your denial of this fact proves you are delusional"
I'm afraid i'm not the one making claims about something I cannot know. I believe there are no Gods. Belief is by neccessity, possibly false. I surrender the fact I might be wrong. However it is not up to me to prove some conceptualized object does not exist. If you think it is, your foolish.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
"You answer lies with the reason some theists claim to KNOW a god exists"
One claim I do make in confidence, pertinent to the existence of God is that he must exist since it is common logic in sound judgment to realize, there is no other possible explanation in alternative to the complexity and order of the universe and life.
The Creator as portrayed and represented in the person of Jesus is far more credible and authoritative than absolutely no idea in explanation whatsoever.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "more credible and authoritative than absolutely no idea in explanation whatsoever."
Ceation stories are logical childs play, think about it. Many creationists posit god started time and the whole bit. This means god existed before time. This means, to prove the story true, it must be proven that something can exist for no amount of time. Sillyness.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
"Creation stories are logical child's play"... Your defense fails against my assertion that you are stymied for lack of even a negligible guess as to what mechanism was responsible for your random, non- purposed, accidental, chance order of the universe and life ideology.
You could never prove this monumental absurdity true.
You cannot go back in time, therefore you could never show the sequential actions and the source of mechanism responsible employing the scientific method.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 A contributory facet to your flawed logic is having an overactive fantasy by misconception to the reality of the limitations of science.
My assertion is corroborated by your ignorant demand and expectation to think there could exist scientific evidence in explanation for that which could have only resulted by Supernatural causality.
Your bias dismisses the very real possibility of ordered, purposed reason in creation in spite of having no possible alternative in explanation.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "Your bias dismisses the very real possibility "
Your conscious want of the unprovable to be true dismisses you claim to reason with impunity. You are free to have your beliefs, but if you can't prove them true, then calling others deluded for not agreeing with you shows brilliantly what your argument consists of.
Your argument basically says.
Proposition X is true because no one can prove it false. Obviously when theology grabs hold, theres no hope. I wish you well.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
That is just your false attribution rearing it's deceptive deflections again.
What you fail to recognize is that faith in theistic Supernatural causality has inherent impunity for the fact of it being the first, only and default position.
If you wish to refute, disavow, discredit, the purposed Supernatural proposition, you must employ scientific methodology of observable, repeatable testing showing a natural mechanism responsible for the inception of the universe and life.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "What you fail to recognize is that faith in theistic Supernatural causality has inherent impunity for the fact of it being the first, only and default position."
A said B first so A must be correct. LOL
This is why talking with people who are devoid of all logical assessment skills is pointless. WE cannot disprove proposition X if the evidence needed to prove it true or false does not exist yet.
Your lying about what atheism is, further talk is pointless.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 " A said B first so A must be correct. LOL
Yours is the typical, falsely ascribe your own bias take as being the argument of your prevailing opponent.
Your distorted refutation fails for ignorance of the premier attribute innate to the human species in knowledge that creation is a Supernatural event., requiring a Supernatural Creator.
Atheism is overruling innate sense in sound judgment to choose belief in the causality of the universe and life against the fixed laws of nature.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FossilEYES1 "Your distorted refutation fails for ignorance of the premier attribute innate to the human species in knowledge that creation is a Supernatural event., requiring a Supernatural Creator."
THat is the funniest thing I have ever read. Belief in creation is an inate attribute? HEh. Your Hilarious.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
If I had made a subjective statement , you might have reason to deem mine as "the funniest thing you ever heard."
It is an objective statement in fact, corroborated by the oldest ancient recorded history, pertinent to all of earliest mankind.
Yours is a subjectively invalid bout with humor.
The absurdity of the universe coming into ordered existence and complexity of life, by random, accidental, non-purposed chance, is the unscientifically bombastic, new brat on the block.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
"The absurdity of the universe coming into ordered existence"
Is absurd subjected to your opinion.
"complexity of life, by random, accidental, non-purposed chance"
Random mutations but non-random selection? C'mon man, even when I was a theist I didn't strawman and act as dishonest as you are acting now. If you have any decency, I suggest you stop throwing around starmen and begin posing some serious questions/answers, not "if there is no natural explanation now, supernatural is the only way".
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally "not "if there is no natural explanation now, supernatural is the only way" Fundies are hilarious at reason and logic. Blows my mind sometimes:)
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@TurboDally
According to your opinion, is it empirical knowledge supported by scientific methodology of observability, testability and repeatably?
No explanation on your part to offer, or refutation to my assertion, with no negligible guess as to how the universe and life could have come about, other than by Supernatural means, renders your position as faith in absurdity.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
"No explanation on your part to offer, or refutation to my assertion"
An assertion which is presented with no evidence whatsoever.
"no negligible guess as to how the universe and life could have come about, other than by Supernatural means, renders your position as faith in absurdity."
I am not the one who believes in supernatural means, I rely on evidence hence I have no faith.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally "An assertion which is presented with no evidence whatsoever"
On the contrary.
Mine is the assertion, which you reject while making no assertion in defense of your fatally flawed non- reason ideology.
This you do, in spite of inability to offer an iota in guess to explain a random, non-purposed, accidental causality, pertinent to the unfathomable complexity of the universe and life.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
"On the contrary. Mine is the assertion, which you reject"
On the basis of lack of evidence. I don't have to accept your "if you can't explain it naturally it must be god" mentality. Assertions without evidence are nothing.
"This you do, in spite of inability to offer.."
I do this due to putting things in perspective. Now leave me be! As an atheist my life has no meaning, thus I must jump off this cliff designed for suicide jumps, aided with the cleverly placed gravitaional constant! Le'splat!
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally
"I don't have to accept your "if you can't explain it naturally it must be god mentality"
You would accept it if you don't wish to further expose yourself as self-deluded in a faith of the, could never be proven or known.
The evidence you overlook is definably, everything in existence in the universe. Your blind faith to reconcile the miraculous ongoing event of the ordered universe as caused by natural means, spontaneously, of it's own accord, contradicts the evidence.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@TurboDally
"I do this due to putting things in perspective. Now leave me be!"
Putting things in perspective as a statement in itself is invalid as "evidence" or retort. It is nullified by ambiguous, vague, non-authoritative subjectivity, while displaying a symptom of your delusional denial syndrome.
Good luck with the jump Geronimo!
There are figurative heaps of atheist corpses at the cliff base, effectively committing spiritual suicide.
You'll be in vast oblivious company.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@TurboDally
"I rely on evidence hence I have no faith"
This sounds so confident and noble in the way you proclaim this.
Only problem is, it is pure fantasy.
If you had any scientific evidence to support your wishful faith in non-reason, you would have presented it already.
Smart (Wise) people will see how you are exposed as an incompetent debater.
All you do is dismiss my assertions while devoid of a meager assertion of your own.
Rejection of an assertion isn't an assertion, lol!
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@TurboDally
Throw that, tired, expected, defensive, deceptive, atheistic 'How To Respond To Theism' handbook in the nearest trash bin available.
Stymied atheists such as you, who can't answer with a mere guess, attempt to deflect from the issue by pulling your fallacious analogy, strawman card.
"Not if there is no natural explanation now"
Notice, I never said; "no natural explanation now."
Do you start your assertions in quotations much?
I say; nonexistent and not remotely possible.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
"Throw that, tired, expected, defensive, deceptive, atheistic 'How To Respond To Theism' handbook in the nearest trash bin available."
There are theists who are more honest and worthy of discussion than someone like you who constantly refers to strawmen and projection.
"Notice, I never said; "no natural explanation now."
Doesn't matter, your position is quite clear. Just because X has not been explained natualistically yet does not justify slipping in "supernatural" causes.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally
Throw that, tired, expected, defensive, deceptive, atheistic 'How To Respond To Theism' handbook in the nearest trash bin available.
Stymied atheists such as you, who can't answer with a mere guess, attempt to deflect from the issue by pulling your fallacious analogy, strawman card.
"Not if there is no natural explanation now"
Notice, I never said; "no natural explanation now."
Do you start your assertions in quotations much?
I say; nonexistent and not remotely possible.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1
Mine is irrefutably accurate, and effectivly objective observation, in the description of atheism.
Yours is convenient omission in partial, ignorant, and bias false disclosure, by intentional deception.
Atheism is the individual free will choice of individual to partake in the faith of the universe having come about by accidental, random chance, in spite of no empirical proof of knowledge to this absurdity.
They do this while choosing to disbelieve any God/s are responsible.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
I noticed that you conveniently left out "The Creator as portrayed and represented in the person of Jesus is far more credible",
This is the dominant point of my statement.
It is no wonder you have such poor skills in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis when you deceptively take what I say out of context and fallaciously use it to attempt to win a point at any cost.
You did this in a sleazy attempt to divert from the main point which your bias renders you unwilling to face.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "This is the dominant point of my statement." It doesn't matter Fossil, no creation story or god can be proven true. IF something cannot be proven true, then no matter how plausible it may seem to the individual, it might be false.
FOr something to be true. It must be PROVEN true. It something has not been proven true. THen it is not yet true and could very easily end up being false. Mapping thoughts to reality Fossil, reason, keeps a mind grounded.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
Sure it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ever been to court?
Exhibiting written testimony of numerous individuals, having no reason to lie, and who corroborate happenings that harmonize with one another, is verification.
You can't be that delusional to deny the impact of Jesus as evidenced by historical adherents in belief.
Belief in Jesus is the most monumental landmark persevering faith the world has ever experienced.
Mapping thoughts in no reason is illogical.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1
More foolishness. 'Beyond resonable doubt' is not proof that something is true.
"You can't be that delusional to deny the impact of Jesus as evidenced by historical adherents in belief."
Oh i never said that, doesn't mean theres a God though. It can very easily mean people are stupid. THe most popular ideology does not equate truth. By current trends, Islam will soon be the most popular religion. Will Allah then be the 1 true God?
sashajw1234 1 year ago
Comment removed
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 What it means is innumerable individuals are satisfied with the testimony of the life, words and miracles of Jesus as credible.
Your logic fails for intentional ignorance of the numerous written testimonies, documented persecution, and tenacity of believers to prevail and thrive in spite of the unequaled obstacles in opposition.
"It can very easily mean" people are stupid for not believing.
If the gospels are true, Jesus would far supersede and disqualify all other religions.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "If the gospels are true...................."
Congratulations Fossil, you just joined the reasonable world. Believing in the message of Jesus is not 'wrong'. Saying 'If' recognizes the possibility that the Gospels could be false in their mataphysical claims.
Good for you.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
I have been a member of the reasonable world since I accepted the reasonable reality of ; In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
In actuality, I have absolutely no doubt that the virgin birth, words in authoritative claim, miracles as proof of Jesus authority, Crucifixion, Resurrection,second coming of Jesus of Nazareth etc.are accurate and reliable historical and prophetic truth.
I believe the gospels and New Testament are contextually, accurate truth.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
I said "if" for the reason that you have no evidence for natural causality of the inseption and sustinence of the universe and life.
My point was to juxtapose the attestation of Jesus to all other reported accounts, in evidence of Gods interaction with the human race and any atheistic non-hypothesis in explaination of the exsistence of the universe and life.
"FOr something to be true, It must be PROVEN true"
This your previous contradictory comment, is a logical fallacy.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 "This your previous contradictory comment, is a logical fallacy"
Nope, such things as true and false are labels applied to propositions when the requirements to apply such labels have been met. Belief is another label. If a proposition cannot be proven true or false, it is not recognized as a truth or a falsehood. WHat it is, is a belief. An belief can be true, or false, however it is not either until proof arrives. Nice try, but no cigar
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
Your failure to qualify your bias subjective view of the criteria, falsely implying that truth rightly classified by fixed standard requirement, is beyond laughable and a failed say nothing bluff.
What a magnanimous nothing you have added to your ever-growing heap.
As to your "nice try but no cigar" bit, do you remember the coyote and road runner cartoons?
You remind me of the acme exploding cigar bit, in blundering coyote fashion.
It also seems you smoke them by the case.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1
"You remind me of the acme exploding cigar bit, in blundering coyote fashion"
LOL, hilarious comming from somebody who does not understand the difference between belief, truth. and falsehood.
Anyway, Turbo's right, I retract my erroneous conclusion that you have joined the reasonable world. WHen you understand the difference between belief and truth. I'd be up for another discussion. Till then. BE well.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
It is merely the metaphorical analogy, as to your continuous fallacious attribution, accurately applicable to your fatally flawed faith in the, everything came into existence of it's own accord ideology.
Your responses repeatably blow up in your face.
Your bombastic bluffs claiming to know the difference between truth and belief utterly fails.
It fails because you are in denial of the fact that you rely on faith in the forever scientifically imposable to prove.
This is truth.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
You and Turbo, cutting and running for lack of ability to defend, or even present your position, is my first double.
Regardless of your rejection of reason , logic and truth, I trust there will be those who are Wise and will reconsider that atheism is a faith in the forever absent of answer.
it is foolish to wish to believe there is a natural explanation for the causality of the universe and complexity of life, with the only evidence in proof being against it. ____bless you!
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sashajw1234 "Supernatural purposed creation is the only remaining option--sashajw1234
Lol, your out to lunch.
It would be better to be out to lunch, than to be emaciated for lack of answer and to believe in a non-reasoned, non-purposed, accidental, random chance occurrence, as being responsible for the ordered existence and complexity of the universe and life.
Continued..
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
Comment removed
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
Continued..
I say; "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, as being the only choice.
I challenge you to prove yourself correct and me wrong, by offering a viable alternative in explanation for the existence, sustaining, and maintenance of the universe and complexity of life?
Crickets......
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@FossilEYES1 How can i disprove that statement when you have not proved it yet? One only disproves something which has false proof or faulty logic behind it. Your belief in a creator has no substance. Reality itself is no proof of any creator. I cannot prove myself correct, and I cannot prove you wrong, because you have not yet provided any evidence for what you believe. What better way to avoid your belief being challenged than putting it outside the reach of science. Suspiciously convenient.
JbRezurectd 1 year ago
@JbRezurectd
"How can I disprove that statement when you have not proved it yet?"
You need to be more specific, as I make numerous statements which cannot be disproved?
"One only disproves something which has false proof or faulty logic behind it"
Well there is your problem right there.
Wait until I have "false proof or faulty logic behind it" and your chances of disproving it will escalate.
Continued...
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@JbRezurectd
Continued...
"Your belief in a creator has no substance"
God is Spirit, therefore he is not quantifiable nor quantifiable by scientific methodology, being limited for lack of ability to observe and test he who is the infinite Creator/God.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@JbRezurectd
Continued...
"What better way to avoid your belief being challenged than putting it outside the reach of science. Suspiciously convenient."
Your belief in accidental, random, non-purposed causality of the ordered universe and life coming into existence of it's own accord has no naturalistic mechanism which could possibly be responsible for it.
Expectedly inconvenient.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
@sashajw1234
"Islam will soon be the most popular religion"
Will Allah then be the 1 true God?"
If you were knowledgeable as to the historical and archeological evidence in proof, you would recognize, your point is moot.
Islam is proven fallacious by it's refuted claim; "The Old and New Testaments were corrupted and changed, necessitating the koran as allah's final revelation."
The Dead Sea Scrolls and oldest codex manuscripts of New Testament Scripture prove this and Islam as a farce.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sashajw1234
Beyond reasonable doubt' is not proof that something is true."
If your own standard is applied to your atheistic ideology, you are proven embarrassingly hypocritical by your proclamation.
You could never prove as true, a natural cause for the universe since you weren't there.
Therefore, you could never know the truth as to whether the universe was caused by spontaneous, random accidental and non-purposed chance, or by ordered and purposed means, by a Supernatural Creator.
FossilEYES1 1 year ago
You believe you lack a belief in God, but I lack the belief that you really believe that you lack a belief in God, and so i believe that you only believe you lack a belief, but you don't REALLY lack a belief.
tgz1000 1 year ago
Have you ever considered working in the Porn Industry? Ya look like a 'shoe in'....
buddydog1956 1 year ago
more like a fluffer XD
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 1 year ago
get out there and do some good.
most people would say your just average, but maybe that's ok with you.
lrmuck54 2 years ago
Jesus said: at the end of days, who shall ever call on my name shall be safe.
....These are the last days he spoke about. Ask Him for faith. BELIEVE, In Christ Jesus
momMiriam 2 years ago
these are the last days he spoke about indeed, and none of the other times in history that the crazies said it, all those other times. yes these crazies like this guy really mean it this time. look out. better go to church and fork over lots of money or else some jealous vengeful god might delight in torturing u for ever and ever for shits and giggles cuz he can after u die if u dont.
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 1 year ago
Belief that an unknown entity of unknown character and unknown abilities made everything in an unknown way for the purpose of loving us is not actually knowledge.
knowledge goes like this: gravity decreases by the square of the distance. Then you can calculate how a planet orbits the sun.
What can you calculate, predict or understand by knowing that god exists.
Do i have an afterlife? Do i have a soul? Is there a heaven? Lets assume god exists. We still cant answer one of these questions.
omnissient 2 years ago
SHE is a cult member whore ,nothing more.. :)
SASHA1536 2 years ago
And what are you? A regular whore? You're obviously above her. I can tell by the fact that you took notice in her, and she probably knows nothing of your existence. What kind of cult does an atheist join? Does this "cult" just sit in a circle, repeating "we believe in nothing!"? Sounds fucking eventful. "If you join in the next week, you'll be eligible for some really nifty door prizes, like a decoder ring, and candy bars..."
TheAdversary333 2 years ago
to the point of; 'cult that sits around and says "we believe in nothing' in regards to atheists.
Deity and religion are not the sum total of human experience and endeavor. Atheists do not say 'we believe in nothing' they only say ( and generalizing here) "we do not believe in god.' Atheists have beliefs, just no belief in deity.
Absurdly misrepresenting atheists will only serve to make you look foolish, Indeed, I'd avoid it no matter who you're debating.
AxisAnalysis 2 years ago
if u go to bars or clubs they wont treat u as an adult (u re 20) so do i ..
SASHA1536 2 years ago
You're basing this off of a joke? So, they don't joke in bars and clubs? And, you mention my age, like it matters terribly. I take it you're older than me, but yet, your grammar, punctuation, and spelling suck. So, I suppose that means no one takes you seriously online, but in clubs, you're the highlight? Is that how it works? Education means nothing when you're out on the town, eh? You've opened my eyes to so many things... Wait, I don't recall ever going to a bar or club with you...
TheAdversary333 2 years ago
So, with that being said, how do you know who takes me seriously? I guess they prefer people with sticks up their asses. And this is all assuming I translated your comment right. Took me a few times to read it. I hope you're really some eight year old, because if not, go back to school. Take English, and for the love of something, pay attention.
TheAdversary333 2 years ago
Where's my candy bars?
MrCBRY 2 years ago
I simply said you were eligible. Candy bars are not guaranteed.
TheAdversary333 2 years ago
please answer me this and be honest with yourself why are you trying this hard to proove that there is no god ,i had the same problem with my religion ,and at the end i understood that i wanted to understand (my conclusion was all religions are fake and the true one got no name and it is kidness love and forgivness ),that was my problem .i am not saying that will be yours but i am curious to know .maybe mankind needs a super power maybe it exists but you what are you aiming for
hannabangi 2 years ago
Rational skeptics are not trying to disprove god. Science is not trying to disprove god. The burden is for those that claim god is fact to prove it so.
Rational skeptics merely reject theism (a positive declaration that deity is fact) due to the lack of evidence for the position.
Theism is not god. If there is a god, evidence suggests that current theistic notions do not accurately reflect the reality for which he's presumed to be responsible. Disproving religion is not disproving god.
AxisAnalysis 2 years ago
The ones that have tried really hard killed them selves. They now know the answer. She's doing what every average person does: Defending her beliefs (or lack there of).
TheAdversary333 2 years ago
Sure they're both beliefs .. but that is not an instant win.
there is a god=belief
there Is not a god=belief
there is not evidence of a god=belief
What you have to ask yourself is, "Are my beliefs informed by evidence and do they accurately reflect reality?"
Agnostics and Atheists have the most logical position given the lack of evidence for deity of any kind.
Theism requires only faith to inform belief, not evidence. All beliefs are not equal, some are supported some are not.
AxisAnalysis 2 years ago
And usually when we get to this part in the argument theists want to nail down atheists and agnostics to a positive belief so they can be tied to something as equally subjective as faith .. like mysticism.
The favorite device for this is the big bang. Let me go ahead and cut it off at the knees right now ..
The big bang only directly explains the expanding universe it does not directly declare where all matter/energy originated.
thank you come again
AxisAnalysis 2 years ago