It takes a big pair to make the claim of atheism.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You don't read too well.

I said I acknowledge your Abrahamic deity is a deity. Thus I beleive he exists.

What I don't believe is that he is the only deity. Your own holy books don't even say as much. "No other Gods before me" implies there are other gods.

So again, you are discounting the option of "many gods". Because why? Dogma? Gnoses?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You don't read too well.

I said I acknowledge your Abrahamic deity is a deity. Thus I beleive he exists.

What I don't believe is that he is the only deity. Your own holy books don't even say as much. "No other Gods before me" implies there are other gods.

So again, you are discounting the option of "many gods". Because why? Dogma? Gnoses?

There are many other gods, false gods.

Still, my point remains, if you don't follow the Creator but lesser gods you're a disbeliever.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

No I am not a follower. An atheist would be a non-believer. A Polytheist is just not a follower.

You have yet to show how my Gods are "False" neighbour.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

No I am not a follower. An atheist would be a non-believer. A Polytheist is just not a follower.

You have yet to show how my Gods are "False" neighbour.

No, that's where you are wrong.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You are going to have to prove that.

You come here, making some big accusations against atheists, now polytheists.

So here is some logic.

The definition of beleif (since you are using the phrase disbeliever is: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

I have acknowledged your Abrahamic deity (the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is a deity.

Thus I have shown belief that he/it exists.

I am no a disbeliever.

What I have said next is "I do not follow it, or acknowledge that he is the "top deity" or "only deity".

Thus if you think I am wrong. You are mistaken. I am not a follower of your deity. Not a non-beleiver (a better term than disbeliever).

You have then said my Gods are "false".

You have yet to prove that.

Your turn:

Prove that all other Gods are false.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You are going to have to prove that.

You come here, making some big accusations against atheists, now polytheists.

So here is some logic.

The definition of beleif (since you are using the phrase disbeliever is: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

I have acknowledged your Abrahamic deity (the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is a deity.

Thus I have shown belief that he/it exists.

I am no a disbeliever.

What I have said next is "I do not follow it, or acknowledge that he is the "top deity" or "only deity".

Thus if you think I am wrong. You are mistaken. I am not a follower of your deity. Not a non-beleiver (a better term than disbeliever).

You have then said my Gods are "false".

You have yet to prove that.

Your turn:

Prove that all other Gods are false.

You're mad bro, I'm not talking to you.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

ANd now the ad hominem attacks neighbour.

You just admitted you were wrong

You can either prove what you say OR you are full of hot air.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

ANd now the ad hominem attacks neighbour.

You just admitted you were wrong

You can either prove what you say OR you are full of hot air.

I never claimed you worship false gods, you did so yourself saying you don't follow the Creator. A believer is someone who follows the creator, disbelievers don't. Live with it;

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's why I can understand where atheists and agnostics are coming from. If I were born and raised in a Hindu only or Buddhist only country, I'd also be seen as an atheist since I don't believe their deities exist. I don't even know most of the Hindu deities, so it's hard for me to even have a conversation about them. And I simply don't believe the stories about the ones that I have heard about, especially since I've seen no proof that they're real.

Concepts like reincarnation sound nice, especially if you're miserable in your current life or grieving over a recently deceased loved one. The comfort of knowing that life will be better after this current life can appeal to a lot of people (similar to the appeal of Heaven). And it's easy to see why many people who are miserable in their current lives would be comforted by the thought that their current oppressors will suffer in their next life/reincarnation, in Hell, in Naraka, in Jahannam, etc. So it's not like I don't understand the concepts or why people can accept them.

But I've simply seen no proof whatsoever that reincarnation is real. And I literally only believe in a Heaven and Hell because of the culmination of my personal and completely unprovable experiences with "God", "Shaytan", and a bunch of other stuff I can't explain. I'm not a believer because of any of the Prophets, Scriptures, traditions, or other "believers" that I've known. The Qur'an's explanations for specific things simply matched what I was going through & what I had heard from those completely unprovable entities.

I guess that's why I cling to the idea that religion is a personal path. It's perfectly possible that I'm simply crazy as ___. LOL But it's worked out well for me, it makes perfect sense to me, and my beliefs have made me a much better person. So even if it turned out that I was simply suffering from a bunch of mental illnesses & hallucinations (both visual and audio), then it would still be ok since it's made me a much better person. I don't commit crimes, I take care of my body, I treat Nature w/respect, and treat most people kindly because of those beliefs (some people suck though so eff them). Then again, my experiences have absolutely nothing to do with others, so I can't fault others for walking a different path in life. If anything, I'd almost hope that others get struck with the same "crazy bug" that I've got, because it would probably make the world a lot better place.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

And now the weasel words fallacy!

You used the phrase "false Gods" first. QED you fell that I worship false Gods. I simply said "many Gods" was an option and you whipped it out and waved it around like a toddler who has discovered they are a boy

You are deciding how words are defined to suit your argument.

I don't follow your deity. I don't consider him to be the prime force (creator) of the universe. I consider him to just be a tribal deity, with the Abrhamic faiths.

So you "live with it" neighbour.

You can not prove my deities are false. Nor can you prove that your argument against Atheism is a logical one. After all you must define a diety, to have proof of deity. While absence of deity is easier. Again I say this as a Polytheist (and scientist)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

And now the weasel words fallacy!

You used the phrase "false Gods" first. QED you fell that I worship false Gods. I simply said "many Gods" was an option and you whipped it out and waved it around like a toddler who has discovered they are a boy

You are deciding how words are defined to suit your argument.

I don't follow your deity. I don't consider him to be the prime force (creator) of the universe. I consider him to just be a tribal deity, with the Abrhamic faiths.

So you "live with it" neighbour.

You can not prove my deities are false. Nor can you prove that your argument against Atheism is a logical one. After all you must define a diety, to have proof of deity. While absence of deity is easier. Again I say this as a Polytheist (and scientist)

Deities who are not the Creator are false gods. It's simple really. We differ in convictions, it's how it is.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Interestingly, the Israelites were polytheistic before they were monotheistic.

Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic,[58] and Israelite monotheism was the result of unique historical circumstances.[59] The original god of Israel was El, as the name demonstrates—its probable meaning is "may El rule" or some other sentence-form involving the name of El.[60] In the early tribal period each tribe would have had its own patron god; when kingship emerged the state promoted Yahweh as the national god of Israel, supreme over the other gods, and gradually Yahweh absorbed all the positive traits of the other gods and goddesses.[11] Yahweh and El merged at religious centres such as Shechem, Shiloh and Jerusalem,[61] with El's name becoming a generic term for "god" and Yahweh, the national god, appropriating many of the older supreme god's titles such as El Shaddai (Almighty) and Elyon (Most High).[62]

Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort,[63] and various biblical passages indicate that her statues were kept in his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.[64] Yahweh may also have appropriated Anat, the wife of Baal, as his consort, as Anat-Yahu ("Anat of Yahu," i.e., Yahweh) is mentioned in 5th century BCE records from the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt.[65] A goddess called the Queen of Heaven was also worshipped, probably a fusion of Astarte and the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar.[64] Worship to Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period of Israel's history, but they were considered irreconcilable after the 9th century BCE, following the efforts of King Ahab and his queen Jezebel to elevate Baal to the status of national god,[66] although the cult of Baal did continue for some time.[67]

The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th; even then it remained the concern of a small party before gaining ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period.[58] The early supporters of this faction are widely regarded as being monolatrists rather than true monotheists;[68] they did not believe that Yahweh was the only god in existence, but instead believed that he was the only god the people of Israel should worship.[69] Finally, in the national crisis of the exile, the followers of Yahweh went a step further and outright denied that the other deities aside from Yahweh even existed, thus marking the transition from monolatrism to true monotheism.[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You state something with out proof. Your belief system is just that, your own belief system. Not the absolute truth. You came out swinging with ad hoinem's and now you are scuttling back.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

When you look at the way societies moved from Polytheism, to henotheism and eventually monotheism, its interesting. I maintain that monotheism, allows a stricter control of the masses, than Polytheism, which allows for an alternative explanation to any spiritual POV.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You state something with out proof. Your belief system is just that, your own belief system. Not the absolute truth. You came out swinging with ad hoinem's and now you are scuttling back.

Nothing ever is good enough for you, so it seems.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Again, you are avoiding questions and in particular the point.

You have made unsubstantiated accusations against atheists and now Polytheists. You don't wish to engage in discussion, rather you wish to wave around dogma.

So that implies, your faith is weak.

a reply to: Noinden

I agree.

originally posted by: Noinden
You don't wish to engage in discussion

I agree that they do not. There seems to be little interest in discussing the reasons people choose a path other than a Christian one.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I am always amazed that I am supposed to sit and listen, but can't offer my own experiences. Especially when I'm not saying they are wrong (that their God is A god (just not the only one)).

I would thus love some willingness to engage

Your arrogance is showing.

I stated directly I didn't wish to reply to you because you're a mad poster.

You can throw insults and false accusations as much as you want, it only confirms your nature. You were offended because I pointed out your disbelief and now you try to get at me.

You were a mad poster here from the start.

I advise to stay on topic and debate why atheists don't have substantial evidence of there being no God, to make your own thread, or to just leave.