Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





. However, as previously mentioned the person of faith can most definitely lose and arguably has the most at stake to lose.


This in fact is incorrect. The person of faith does not deny himself in a negitive way. He simply chooses to not partake in activities he feels is against his beliefs. There for he has lost nothing. When he dies should there be nothing hereafter he again has lost nothing. However for the atheist if God exists then he will face Him without excuse and pay full measure for his error. The loss is only one sided when it comes to God. People can debate all day long and in the end it still boils down to faith. The atheist has faith He doesn't exist and the beliver has faith He does. The atheist lacks evidence and knowledge to support his claim. The person of faith is in a simalar position as not having enough scientific evidence.

Where the person of faith errors is believing in something they were told without checking the facts. This can make them look foolish at best or ignorant at worst. I won't go into their major blunder about the age of the earth. It only gives those that do not believe cause to ridicule based on a sound fact.

The atheist errors in much the same way. Though its not due to lookin or checking for facts as just not having enough to truly support his position. Saying they do is really putting faith in our very limited knowledge. Edison was quite correct in stating that we do not know 1/10 of 1% about anything even though we think we do.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
This in fact is incorrect. The person of faith does not deny himself in a negitive way. He simply chooses to not partake in activities he feels is against his beliefs. There for he has lost nothing. When he dies should there be nothing hereafter he again has lost nothing


Living your life in accordance with a lie is losing everything.


However for the atheist if God exists then he will face Him without excuse and pay full measure for his error. The loss is only one sided when it comes to God.


Sez U.
Anything else you care to make up about "god"?



People can debate all day long and in the end it still boils down to faith. The atheist has faith He doesn't exist and the beliver has faith He does. The atheist lacks evidence and knowledge to support his claim. The person of faith is in a simalar position as not having enough scientific evidence.


No, atheists do not have faith, nor do they have a claim. The believer has no evidence whatsoever, only subjective experiences and feelings which lead him to beliefs.


Where the person of faith errors is believing in something they were told without checking the facts. This can make them look foolish at best or ignorant at worst. I won't go into their major blunder about the age of the earth. It only gives those that do not believe cause to ridicule based on a sound fact.


What facts are there to check about god? How does a believer reconcile the obvious errors of scriptures in describing the physical world? If they are inaccurate about the physical world how accurate are they about the "spirit world"?


The atheist errors in much the same way. Though its not due to lookin or checking for facts as just not having enough to truly support his position. Saying they do is really putting faith in our very limited knowledge. Edison was quite correct in stating that we do not know 1/10 of 1% about anything even though we think we do.


Atheism requires no facts or evidence for their position as it is based on lack of evidence. Funny you mention the limits of knowledge as gods always reside in those realms. And despite our enormous gains in knowledge, god seems to turn up nowhere.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



3-5= -2 Hmm.
But if a creator did not exist there would be nothing. lol. Something cannot come from nothing no matter what you think.


A smart ass reply only goes so far to prove that you are a smart ass.


I am not sure what can about the spirit, but soul and spirit pretty much go together.

www.snopes.com...

I found this interesting. There are skeptics who say it is not true, but it is interesting none the less.


The only thing interesting is that it is true someone attempted it and that the results were flawed. Reading the status of 'true' does not make the results positive. You need to read further. This is no more interesting than learning the brontosaurus never existed.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
3-5= -2 Hmm.
But if a creator did not exist there would be nothing. lol. Something cannot come from nothing no matter what you think.


There is no evidence of a "creator". Your belief that everything must be created is your attempt to anthropomorphize the universe. This displays a limited, anthropocentric thought process. Think outside the box.

Nobody claims that "something came from nothing". It should be noted that nothing observed anywhere in the universe has required any kind of supernatural intervention.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Conclusion
3-5= -2 Hmm.
But if a creator did not exist there would be nothing. lol. Something cannot come from nothing no matter what you think.


There is no evidence of a "creator". Your belief that everything must be created is your attempt to anthropomorphize the universe. This displays a limited, anthropocentric thought process. Think outside the box.

Nobody claims that "something came from nothing". It should be noted that nothing observed anywhere in the universe has required any kind of supernatural intervention.


There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Conclusion]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





A smart ass reply only goes so far to prove that you are a smart ass.


You of all people talk about smart ass answers?

Well better a smart ass than a dumb ass I guess.




The only thing interesting is that it is true someone attempted it and that the results were flawed. Reading the status of 'true' does not make the results positive. You need to read further. This is no more interesting than learning the brontosaurus never existed.


I did read it. I found no flaw in it. Please explain this flaw.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion

There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.



Just because something is created does not mean it requires a "creator", that is a supernatural deity. Everything created in the universe that is not the result of human intervention has a natural source for causation. There is no way around that



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




The FACT is your views could simply pertain, do to a lack of spiritual experience


I don't think anyone should go on something as vague as "spiritual experience". Warm fuzzy feelings from singing hymns and praying don't constitute proof of God. I'm talking about scientific evidence that can be verified not subjective "spiritual" experience retold in anecdotes and religious testimonies.

Surely you have a specific religion correct? Well what do you think of the spiritual experiences of OTHER faiths? If you accept that your spiritual experience is real do you accept or dismiss the spiritual experience of Muslims, or the spirit world journeys of Shaman and what of people who claim to be abducted by aliens or to meet Elvis despite the fact he's dead?

Spiritual experiences are subjective and vary depending on what religion a person belongs to, they can hardly be considered evidence for God.



How can he post so much crap, nsults and mockery designed to offend.


So my desiring evidence to prove the existence of God is designed to offend? I don't think I was even harsh on the OP in the slightest.



When someone else may have good, solid factual happenings in there life, that support what they believe.


Someone's subjective experience can hardly serve as objective proof for God to me. If God descended from Heaven to talk to me I would believe but I wouldn't go around expecting anyone else to believe based on my experience because for all they know I am a loon.



Seek and you will find.


I spent years and years as a Christian and all I found was excessive guilt and fear. No matter how I cried out to God to cleanse my soul all I got back from Heaven was a chorus of heavenly crickets




But asking an atheist to find God is like asking a thief to find a policeman.


This only works if the world we're talking about has no policemen.



For instance a woman I know was healed of an anurism right in the hospital


I hear anecdotal stories like this touted everywhere all the over the internet. They're always the same and they make the same mistake. Assuming that this woman could never have gotten better without prayer or neglecting to mention the care she was getting from REAL MEDICINE. Until I see something like this documented in peer review scientific literature it will remain exactly what it is, a quaint anecdotal story.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Conclusion]


Everything has a creator?

So who created the creator?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by PieKeeper]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Just because something is created does not mean it requires a "creator",


LMAO!!


Please explain that part to me.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by Conclusion
There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Conclusion]


Everything has a creator?

So who created the creator?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by PieKeeper]


I don't know that answer. That is a good question though. For him not to have a creator but to always have been there does seem incomprehensible for me at least. Maybe the clue is in I AM .



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 





There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.


Things can be created by natural processes friend. We have evidence of this everywhere in geology. The Grand Canyon, for instance, was carved by erosion. Island chains are often formed by volcanic activity. No supernatural sky man necessary. And what of reproduction - two parents join together to CREATE an offspring that didn't exist before.

So yes, most things have a creator BUT that creator typically is not an intelligent agent.

What can be shown to be created by this supernatural deity? And why would it be just one deity? Shouldn't there be one for everything that was created? A deity for rocks, one for trees, one for mountains, etc.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 



This in fact is incorrect. The person of faith does not deny himself in a negitive way.


What a crock of sh*t. Your denying that you are personally responsible for your own morality. By placing the responsibility of determine morality upon a higher entity, you are impacting your own ability to make sound judgments.


He simply chooses to not partake in activities he feels is against his beliefs.


And here we can interject a fine example of 'faith in deity'. In some religious sects, they don't allow thing's as mundane as blood transfusions as part of their "faith". This has led to the deaths of people in dire need of such a simple medical procedure.

Is it a positive aspect of faith, or a moral and righteous act to withhold life saving medical techniques?


There for he has lost nothing.


He lost morality. I have no reason to assume he is moral for the sake of being moral because he has FAITH that being moral will grant him a reward. Take away that promise of reward, then what?


When he dies should there be nothing hereafter he again has lost nothing.


He has freely given up his intellect by dismissing what we've learned about our universe and how thing's work within it.


However for the atheist if God exists then he will face Him without excuse and pay full measure for his error.


And if Osiris exists, then you will have your soul weighed by Anubis.

What's your point?


The loss is only one sided when it comes to God.


If arguing from a closed minded point of view whilst exclaiming to the hundreds of millions of followers of other faiths and deities that their deities don't exist despite all their personal proofs for existence.


People can debate all day long and in the end it still boils down to faith. The atheist has faith He doesn't exist and the beliver has faith He does. The atheist lacks evidence and knowledge to support his claim. The person of faith is in a simalar position as not having enough scientific evidence.


Atheism has archeological history showing the young age of the Judaic-Christian deity in comparison to much older deities.

Faith not be applied to written history, and YAY for written history!


Where the person of faith errors is believing in something they were told without checking the facts. This can make them look foolish at best or ignorant at worst. I won't go into their major blunder about the age of the earth. It only gives those that do not believe cause to ridicule based on a sound fact.


Huh?


The atheist errors in much the same way. Though its not due to lookin or checking for facts as just not having enough to truly support his position. Saying they do is really putting faith in our very limited knowledge. Edison was quite correct in stating that we do not know 1/10 of 1% about anything even though we think we do.


I agree with Edison, and as an Atheist I don't believe in anything that is not fully proven and has sufficient evidence for being real. Claiming a deity exists without evidence for it's existence is arrogance at it's purest level.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Hmmm. How about the experience of walking to your closet, then what feels like an energy beam of light about 1 inch in diameter coming down on your head entering into your mind and all of a sudden what seems like a movie in super ultra fast forward encompassing every fabric of focus within your body for about 10 seconds. Then your standing there not exactly sure what the hell just happened but knowing for a fact that truth had just been revealed to you and no matter who you tell, whether they are believers or not, they will have a very hard time accepting that story, because deep down you know you would. Then after years of pondering the experience and testing the reality of said event all you can do is really know for yourself.

Would that qualify as a spiritual experience?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadrian

She's got a point. Those that don't believe in god are just as much in the "faith" field as anyone else. Sorry guys. I'll see you on the other side and we can talk then. If there is another side.


I disagree! The old argument that an atheist has the same faith as a believer is an oldie, not so much a goodie. Atheists make no claim in the belief of a deity!!! Therefore, there is no required faith for them to have!

Atheists' position is there is no evidence for a deity.

The end.


How do you KNOW though? You don't. You can't. THAT is why it's as much a faith as anything else.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Conclusion
 





There is no way around not having a creator. Tell me or show me anything that you know of that was not created. You keep saying there is no evidence but it is right in front of you. You just refuse to accept it.


Things can be created by natural processes friend. We have evidence of this everywhere in geology. The Grand Canyon, for instance, was carved by erosion. Island chains are often formed by volcanic activity. No supernatural sky man necessary. And what of reproduction - two parents join together to CREATE an offspring that didn't exist before.

So yes, most things have a creator BUT that creator typically is not an intelligent agent.

What can be shown to be created by this supernatural deity? And why would it be just one deity? Shouldn't there be one for everything that was created? A deity for rocks, one for trees, one for mountains, etc.


What caused the volcanic activity to start. What started the process....so on and so forth. Something started the event therefore creating the outcome.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Also just to add. Doesn't life seem to be an intelligent design? I mean it is amazing. Not just life, but the vessel designed to carry it.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



You of all people talk about smart ass answers?
Well better a smart ass than a dumb ass I guess.


We'll get to that in a second.



I did read it. I found no flaw in it. Please explain this flaw.


Hm, did you really read it, or are you being a dumb ass?


So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that "the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.")



I don't know that answer. That is a good question though. For him not to have a creator but to always have been there does seem incomprehensible for me at least. Maybe the clue is in I AM .


If a creator requires a creator, then we're left with infinite regression. If a creator could exist infinitely, then it is no more less reasonable to assume an infinite universe where natural processes take place.

In either case, we're left without a definitive answer. Yet in the case for a creator, we're left with an illogical assumption that a universe needs to be intelligently created without any evidence that this must be so.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



How do you KNOW though? You don't. You can't. THAT is why it's as much a faith as anything else.


I'll bite.

We KNOW the Judaic-Christian deity does not exist any more than all other man made deities, because archeological history provides evidence for said deity being a recent man made mythology borrowing from older mythologies.

As for a creator, no one can answer that definitively. Yet, if your asking that this creator must be any of the man made mythologies existent on this planet, then the answer is sadly no, not even close.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Also just to add. Doesn't life seem to be an intelligent design? I mean it is amazing. Not just life, but the vessel designed to carry it.


No, life doesn't appear to be an intelligent design. It appears to me that life evolved in a symbiotic relationship of sorts with predators at the top and bacterium at the bottom. With each species adapting to it's particular niche and role as it fights for survival and reproduction.

As amazing as the process of life is, there does not seem to be anything indicative of an intelligence behind it all.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join