Atheists have no answers

Religion's answer to every question about God's behavior is that God is mysterious. That he's so intelligent, nothing he does can be measured by human reasoning.

It's like in the story of the "Emperor has no clothes". If you can't see his magnificent robes, it must be because you're not wise enough.


The only question Atheism (or science) can't answer is: where does the soul go when you die? And it kind of can..... just you wouldn't like its answer.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Religion's answer to every question about God's behavior is that God is mysterious.

No that is only your false hope spewing forth.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: randyvs
Because they are always asking the theist for answers. It's as if the atheist
only gets to ask questions. Why is this so? I must assume it's because the
atheist has no answers. And when I think about it, How could they have
any answers to their own questions. They have made a conclusion based
on zero evidence about an ideology that has been around since before
recorded history. Not only that there is a history to it absolutely.
And Richard Dawkins intolerable attitude towards a point of view other
than his own? Just makes him a secularist bigot and nothing more.
Atheists have no answers and even Flew flew the coupe. So when it
comes to questions about mans origins? I can't possibly consider the
atheist.

Could you be more specific as to which questions we're asking? Perhaps I can explain why we ask them.

Also, what answers to which questions are we supposed to have?

Atheism isn't an ideology, so there's no scripture, no common line of thinking or universal agreement on anything philosophical for an atheist, other than a lack of belief in any gods.

I can understand how that can be confusing from the perspective of a religious individual, considering religions all have their own answers. So it's an honest misunderstanding.

But if you're honestly curious, I can see if I can help

It isn't a lack of belief in a God, it is a belief there is no God.. And it utilizes even more faith than people who believe in God since there is more evidence than not that there is a God.

No, you're just referring to "hard atheism". Soft atheism is entirely different, and the most basic definition of an Atheist is a lack of belief in god. I can get all the necessary citations to prove my point if you'd like (a bit busy at the moment, but if you don't believe me, I can actually prove my words)

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: randyvs

There you go, hun.

Hope you're doing well.
I'll be here for a few more minutes if you want to talk.

eta: Literally, til Thursday.

You all realize that he was a Founding Father of the United States, and was involved in the French "Enlightenment" Revolution....right?

You know who he is?

He's all about separation of church and state.

So Buzz, those who are religious should be excluded from having a political voice, how very Stalinesque of you
Yes I believe in separation of church and state as well, but i dont believe that your extreme views are realistic

There has to be a balance
You are like Wesboro baptist, only the atheist or whatever equivelant

I don't know how you can mix that thought up anymore than you did. Does anyone else see what he did there?

I see him arguing for religious policy. (And picking through an hour and a half lecture to get maybe 4 answers is kind of slow going...)

I'm more interested in questions like : why does god allow children to be born with handicaps? Outwardly it looks sadistic.

The athiest's answer is that it is just plain bad luck. I find that answer much more satisfying.

He is kind enough to address Xian opposition to Homosexuality. But he doesn't address the Xian hatred of family planning. Presumably no matter how bad the poverty gets, or how many children end up having to suffer, it will still always be blamed on greed? Even if there were 700 trillion people, and the Earth simply cannot grow food for them using any known technology....... none of it would be the fault of those who choose to over reproduce?





He also fails to address Jesus never claiming to be god. Jesus claimed to be a child of God in multiple places, but we're supposed to be all of us children of God. Or saying before Abraham was "I am" (which could just mean god existed before Abraham.)

They should have thrown Matthew 27:46 at him. or Mark 15:34 This is the only time Jesus is ever quoted speaking in his own language untranslated (although they do go on to translate it for us.)

"Eli! Eli! Lama Sabactani!?"
"My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me!?"

That's an interesting question for God to be asking himself.



You needn't assume that I doubt religion because I don't know about it. I doubt it precisely because I know quite a lot about it.

Also he uses a lot of the "false dichotomy" fallacy. Limiting the possibilities to say 3 kinds of laws, or 3 approaches to truth... or etc. Rather than there being 100 or 1000 different approaches. With a false dichotomy (or trichotomy...etc) you can then use process of elimination on 1 (or 2) of them and make the remaining one appear to be the only possibly correct one.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: randyvs
Because they are always asking the theist for answers. It's as if the atheist
only gets to ask questions. Why is this so? I must assume it's because the
atheist has no answers. And when I think about it, How could they have
any answers to their own questions. They have made a conclusion based
on zero evidence about an ideology that has been around since before
recorded history. Not only that there is a history to it absolutely.
And Richard Dawkins intolerable attitude towards a point of view other
than his own? Just makes him a secularist bigot and nothing more.
Atheists have no answers and even Flew flew the coupe. So when it
comes to questions about mans origins? I can't possibly consider the
atheist.

Could you be more specific as to which questions we're asking? Perhaps I can explain why we ask them.

Also, what answers to which questions are we supposed to have?

Atheism isn't an ideology, so there's no scripture, no common line of thinking or universal agreement on anything philosophical for an atheist, other than a lack of belief in any gods.

I can understand how that can be confusing from the perspective of a religious individual, considering religions all have their own answers. So it's an honest misunderstanding.

But if you're honestly curious, I can see if I can help

It isn't a lack of belief in a God, it is a belief there is no God.. And it utilizes even more faith than people who believe in God since there is more evidence than not that there is a God.

No, you're just referring to "hard atheism". Soft atheism is entirely different, and the most basic definition of an Atheist is a lack of belief in god. I can get all the necessary citations to prove my point if you'd like (a bit busy at the moment, but if you don't believe me, I can actually prove my words)

Soft Atheism is basically just a cop out. "I don't believe" is the hedging version of "I believe it is not so".

But that's all it is. It's just a hedge. Basically saying "I have chosen not to invest faith in God's existence." A step beyond saying "I am undecided" but a step shy of saying "I choose to invest faith in God's non-existence."

Which leaves us with them saying "I choose not to invest faith in either assertion". IE. A hedge. Choosing not to choose.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: randyvs

There you go, hun.

Hope you're doing well.
I'll be here for a few more minutes if you want to talk.

eta: Literally, til Thursday.

You all realize that he was a Founding Father of the United States, and was involved in the French "Enlightenment" Revolution....right?

You know who he is?

He's all about separation of church and state.

So Buzz, those who are religious should be excluded from having a political voice, how very Stalinesque of you
Yes I believe in separation of church and state as well, but i dont believe that your extreme views are realistic

There has to be a balance
You are like Wesboro baptist, only the atheist or whatever equivelant

I don't know how you can mix that thought up anymore than you did. Does anyone else see what he did there?

No No
Please tell me Woody
I am very interested in your opinion in relation to my and Buzzs conversations

Setting you up, here it comes

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: randyvs
Because they are always asking the theist for answers. It's as if the atheist
only gets to ask questions. Why is this so? I must assume it's because the
atheist has no answers. And when I think about it, How could they have
any answers to their own questions. They have made a conclusion based
on zero evidence about an ideology that has been around since before
recorded history. Not only that there is a history to it absolutely.
And Richard Dawkins intolerable attitude towards a point of view other
than his own? Just makes him a secularist bigot and nothing more.
Atheists have no answers and even Flew flew the coupe. So when it
comes to questions about mans origins? I can't possibly consider the
atheist.

Could you be more specific as to which questions we're asking? Perhaps I can explain why we ask them.

Also, what answers to which questions are we supposed to have?

Atheism isn't an ideology, so there's no scripture, no common line of thinking or universal agreement on anything philosophical for an atheist, other than a lack of belief in any gods.

I can understand how that can be confusing from the perspective of a religious individual, considering religions all have their own answers. So it's an honest misunderstanding.

But if you're honestly curious, I can see if I can help

It isn't a lack of belief in a God, it is a belief there is no God.. And it utilizes even more faith than people who believe in God since there is more evidence than not that there is a God.

No, you're just referring to "hard atheism". Soft atheism is entirely different, and the most basic definition of an Atheist is a lack of belief in god. I can get all the necessary citations to prove my point if you'd like (a bit busy at the moment, but if you don't believe me, I can actually prove my words)

Yeah but you are a hard atheist with an agenda Ghost

Using definitions, pedantics?
You can get all the citations but just playing the "No true Scotsman" isnt a reality in logic.
Your claim is irrelevant to another claim and how they identify themselves

a reply to: Ghost147

I can get all the necessary citations to prove my point if you'd like (a bit busy at the moment,

I gotcha Ghost how about this.
How to Become an Atheist

Step one out of eleven:

1 Examine your current beliefs.
No matter what you previously believed, if now deep down you find no belief in god, your transformation is already complete. There is no process or initiation for becoming an atheist (except possibly a "coming out" to others). If you can honestly think, "I don't believe there is a god/gods," you are already an atheist.

Deep down?= Soul?
Coming out? =Baptism?
Honestly Think? =????

Is this 11 step process soft or hard atheism?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Religion's answer to every question about God's behavior is that God is mysterious. That he's so intelligent, nothing he does can be measured by human reasoning.

It's like in the story of the "Emperor has no clothes". If you can't see his magnificent robes, it must be because you're not wise enough.


The only question Atheism (or science) can't answer is: where does the soul go when you die? And it kind of can..... just you wouldn't like its answer.

Thats very inaccurate
God is very clear
Just because you are blind doesnt mean the clothes are not there
God is love, love demands justice so God is justice.
You just dont like justice and how it is meted out
So you rail against the justice, everybody wants to escape justice and live according to their desire, sorry, it cant happen that way.

randyvs just likes to post these threads to reassure himself that he is still pious and righteous by encouraging dissenting members here to attack his perspective with everything they got. examples are here and here and here. its an old game of "change my mind if you can!" spoiler alert: we cant. accept it and move on. bait thread is bait.

a reply to: TzarChasm

randyvs just likes to post these threads to reassure himself that he is still pious and righteous by encouraging dissenting members here to attack his perspective with everything they got. examples are here and here and here. its an old game of "change my mind if you can!" spoiler alert: we cant. accept it and move on. bait thread is bait.

Threads not about me guys or you. I haven't seen one answer from atheists
that makes sense about anything. So if you have no answers and only rhetorical
questions? Then thanks for prove'n
my point guys n gals. Good job.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
randyvs just likes to post these threads to reassure himself that he is still pious and righteous by encouraging dissenting members here to attack his perspective with everything they got. examples are here and here and here. its an old game of "change my mind if you can!" spoiler alert: we cant. accept it and move on. bait thread is bait.

So TC, what are you doing here, being the white horse hero, pious and righteous attack others perspectives with everything you got.
Move on, move along
Hypocrit

a reply to: Raggedyman

So TC, what are you doing here, being the white horse hero, pious and righteous attack others perspectives with everything you got. Move on, move along Hypocrit

Atheists really hate not getting the best of me and that just adds to
the fun.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Randy is a smart dude, he has been here a long time. He simply knows how to get everyone to the table. It's great, I have seen variety of member participation in this thread than most.

I doubt highly if Randy is insecure about his faith, if he was he wouldn't be here. There are much easier ways to get validation online.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
randyvs just likes to post these threads to reassure himself that he is still pious and righteous by encouraging dissenting members here to attack his perspective with everything they got. examples are here and here and here. its an old game of "change my mind if you can!" spoiler alert: we cant. accept it and move on. bait thread is bait.

So TC, what are you doing here, being the white horse hero, pious and righteous attack others perspectives with everything you got.
Move on, move along
Hypocrit

its not an attack if i am stating the facts. nothing i said was inaccurate. and you mr raggedy are well known for your own threads that exhibit much the same pattern as randyvs. with much the same results, i might add.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Raggedyman

So TC, what are you doing here, being the white horse hero, pious and righteous attack others perspectives with everything you got. Move on, move along Hypocrit

Atheists really hate not getting the best of me and that just adds to
the fun.

no one here is interested in getting the best of you randy. i already named your game and that makes it so much less fascinating for members who have played it before. if nothing else you are certainly predictable.

Threads not about me guys or you. I haven't seen one answer from atheists
that makes sense about anything. So if you have no answers and only rhetorical
questions? Then thanks for prove'n
my point guys n gals. Good job.

you made a whole thread (linked above) about how much proven science doesnt make sense to you and how proud you are of refusing to learn anything except what you want to learn. its a badge of spiritual honor for you. who are we to take that away from you? we couldnt if we tried, and you give us less and less reason to try. you learn nothing and the rest of us lose nothing. your victory is a hollow one mr devious.

a reply to: Observationalist

validation was the point of this entire thread. randyvs loves his validation or he wouldnt keep challenging the forum to make him look like a fool.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

randyvs just likes to post these threads to reassure himself that he is still pious and righteous by encouraging dissenting members here to attack his perspective with everything they got. examples are here and here and here. its an old game of "change my mind if you can!" spoiler alert: we cant. accept it and move on. bait thread is bait.

Threads not about me guys or you. I haven't seen one answer from atheists
that makes sense about anything. So if you have no answers and only rhetorical
questions? Then thanks for prove'n
my point guys n gals. Good job.

Asked you a question a few pages ago, but perhaps you were too busy to reply.
If you could please clarify the questions from your OP, then perhaps we can give another honest effort to help you find the answers required.
Peace.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You may see validation, because it's inconceivable for you to imagine faith could be the source of such confidence. Well maybe Randy and the others Christians on here are on to something.

Perhaps they stand on a more solid foundation, a foundation free of fear. Where atheist must sort through this beach full of isims and crap theories only to construct a castle made of sand, constantly in need of rebuilding and modifying.

Now the latter to me seems the position that is in need of validation.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Raggedyman

So TC, what are you doing here, being the white horse hero, pious and righteous attack others perspectives with everything you got. Move on, move along Hypocrit

Atheists really hate not getting the best of me and that just adds to
the fun.

Unfortunately, the fruit of the Spirit is humility not arrogance
Its a fine line, be careful