It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


What is your lack of evidence that the God whose name is Jesus does not exist.

The Bible has stated many things that were written hundreds of years ago, that by many who believe them to have been ignorant, have been proved or happening today.

Job 38:
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

It was not until the 1970's that we discovered that there are fresh water springs in the depths of the oceans.

Job 38:
[35] Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

It was not until the invention of the telegraph that we could send messages by electricity.

All of the fossils around the world are proof of the world wide flood from Noah's day,

Same as coal reserves

Same as polystrate fossils which there happen to be thousands of.

Willful ignorance is just being stupid on purpose.
One can deny that which is true but it does not make it go away.
You do have a soul you do inheritlly know right from wrong, you just chose wrong because it feels good temporally.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 




Well, to start off, do you know of any examples of something as complex as the universe coming out of nothing without outside help?


Once again you are assuming it came into existence out of nothing. Science only has extrapolated back to the Big Bang and at that time there was something, in fact there was everything - it was just condensed into a singularity.

At no time has the Universe ever been nothing as far as we can tell there's always been something.

Also, a lack of an answer for how and why the Universe exists does not mean we start speculating things for which there are no evidence to create the Universe. Whether it be aliens, God or any other kind of intelligent designer you are only using that being to fill the gaps in knowledge - I prefer to admit we just don't know and leave it at that. You're invoking something for which there is no evidence (God) in order to explain why something for which there is evidence (the Universe) came into existence.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 




What is your lack of evidence that the God whose name is Jesus does not exist.


What do you mean what is my lack of evidence? That's like asking a naked person what their lack of pants is. There is no evidence that God or gods exist outside of subjective "experience" and myth. As for Jesus there is some evidence a man named Jesus/Yeshua did exist around the same time Jesus was supposed to have lived but the fact that he existed doesn't prove he was God no more than finding evidence that Achilles existed would prove that Achilles was part god.



The Bible has stated many things that were written hundreds of years ago, that by many who believe them to have been ignorant, have been proved or happening today.


Biblical prophecy is obscenely vague and open to wildly varied interpretation. Often these prophecies are taken out of their proper Biblical context as well (this is the case with the vast majority of so called Messianic Prophecies). If there were any reality or truth to it scientists around the world would be studying it. There is no evidence that prophecy of any kind works.



It was not until the 1970's that we discovered that there are fresh water springs in the depths of the oceans.


It was a well established idea that the water of the oceans rose from the depths. Read the Flood story again where the springs of the deep are opened. The belief likely stemmed from finding water when digging wells and in the form of underground rivers, the authors then inferred that water came from underground. This is no more a prophecy than if Jesus had mentioned rain coming from the sky.



It was not until the invention of the telegraph that we could send messages by electricity.


Way to just rob this out of its context to make a point that the verse doesn't even make. The verse is not talking about modern day communications. Yahweh was a storm god and in this verse he's talking to Job about how he can cast lightning while Job cannot as part of his "who are you to question me?" speech to Job.



All of the fossils around the world are proof of the world wide flood from Noah's day,


5th Grade geology disproves the Flood. Pick up a science book or go on wikipedia, there's simply no reason for statements like this in the 21st century. The fossils we find are in distinct layers of stratification that were laid down gradually, if they had all been laid down in a massive flood they would all be on top of each other, dinosaurs, man, raccoons and elephants all on the same lair... but that's not what we see.



Willful ignorance is just being stupid on purpose.


And you've just demonstrated it masterfully.



One can deny that which is true but it does not make it go away.


Another instance of psychological projection. Please pick up a science book and let reality sink in. Remember that ignoring the scientific evidence doesn't make it go away.



You do have a soul you do inheritlly know right from wrong, you just chose wrong because it feels good temporally.


Morals fluctuate, they are subjective and not based on an ethereal ghost living inside us. Want proof that morals are subjective, read the Bible all the way through. God changes his mind on what is right and what is wrong so many times in that book it'll make your head spin.

Think before you post.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


With all due respect, atheists do not believe in God - that is what atheist means.

Atheists = no belief in God

Theists = belief in God

Agnostics = sitting on the fence (cowards - but it won't help them in the end).



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


You're invoking something for which there is no evidence (God) in order to explain why something for which there is evidence (the Universe) came into existence.


That's exactly what I'm doing, because it's illogical that something as vast, complex, and orderly as the universe would come into existence arbitrarily. I'm glad we understand each other.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


Go Chicken!

Of course something as incredibly designed, to a degree even Hawking will never understand, had to have been created by a higher being.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


Once again you are assuming it came into existence out of nothing. Science only has extrapolated back to the Big Bang and at that time there was something, in fact there was everything - it was just condensed into a singularity.


It doesn't matter if singularity came from nothing or if there was an eternal variable that created singularity.

I'm more interested in why you think it's more reasonable to conclude that singularity and everything with it just happened arbitrarily, without any guidance. I find that highly illogical.

And whether or not there is empirical evidence for God shouldn't matter because it's exactly what I'd expect from such an entity. I wouldn't expect God to leave any strong evidence for His existence, because I think He wants us to use our brains. Look around the world... does anything look easy to you? I'd think it inconsistent for a God who doesn't appear to directly intervene with His own creation to leave conclusive evidence that He exists. Don't you agree? And like I told you before, if a being did swoop down and claim that he was God, there would be no good reason to believe him. It doesn't bother me like it does you that I don't have a snapshot of God surfing at His favorite beach. Even if I did have such a snapshot, no one would believe it was God anyway.

How about this... what if God appeared before you this very second? Would you even trust in yourself enough to believe that you just saw God? No? Isn't that funny? But here you are whining about evidence...

If a being appeared before me and turned my coffee to WINE (not whine, lul), and then claimed to be my God, I wouldn't believe him! Never mind that, I wouldn't trust in myself to even go that far. I'd think I was going crazy.

Let's forget about empirical evidence when talking about an idea as complex as God. Maybe one day you'll put away your childish definitions and ideas of God, and then you'll understand.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


What is your lack of evidence that the God whose name is Jesus does not exist.




The God named Jesus.....

See I thought he was the son of god?

Hmmmm..... Monotheism my ass



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
No one can prove that God doesn't exist.

Which god? The problem is that there are an infinite number of possible deities. And as far as we can tell they have absolutely no effect on our lives. So even *if* they did exist, what's the point in believing in them if they have no effect on our lives at all?



In fact, those that I have met who think that God doesn't exist still believe he does, they just don't like him. Try reading Dawkins. Dawkins doesn't spend a single second of his book "The God Delusion" proving that God doesn't exist. Instead, he spends the entire piece of trash railing on a God that DAWKINS HIMSELF BELIEVES TO EXIST, or else he wouldn't bother to insult Him and his followers.


I don't speak for Dawkins, but his strategy as far as I know is anti-evangelical. Promoting a sensible, logical book just wouldn't get the masses to take notice would it? (It's been done before by the way).



Two years ago, I was having a crisis and wasn't sure if God existed or not or if I existed / had a soul or not. So do you know what happened?

I assumed that God did not exist, I assumed that free will did not exist. And THAT is when you realize they do, because things don't add up. It is called a proof by contradiction.


I'm a research statistician. Can you explain how your "proof" works, as it sure doesn't seem like a proof that would be accepted by any logician.



I even visualized it at the time. I was walking next to a dark lake, the thick, black water representing nihilism, no free will, no soul, no God. I was very afraid of this lake. And then I thought, "why am I just standing here?" So I jumped in. And do you know what happened? In the darkness, it became easier to see the light.


There are other possibilities. You aren't comfortable within your mortality, and believing in magic and gods and you being special is easier. I'm sure it is. I would rather face the ugly truth than believe a nice lie.



I saw specks of light all around me representing real, scientific and logical flaws with the idea that God and free will do not exist. I got in contact with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, a quantum physicist, bought his books and those of a few other authors, and eventually wrote an independent study for my psychology major on a Quantum Theory of Mind that will probably never be taken seriously by the mainstream scientists for anywhere from 30 to 1000 years, when they finally get their heads out of their asses.

Even if any of your theories are remotely correct (remember box's favorite quote: all models are wrong, some are useful), it doesn't preclude an almost infinite number of ways that they could arise naturally. Claiming that a) your specific theory of the universe is correct and b) you know exactly why and c) it was revealed to you in a vision is delusions of grandeur on a magnanimous scale.

As you've done some psychology, I expect that you have have the ability to hold an unbiased position. Try seeing it from *all the other* perspectives, and don't just accept the one you want to be true. It's the path to enlightenment, but not necessarily contentment




Until then, I am still collecting news articles and scientific data to back up my theories.


This is part of the reason I hate working with psychologists. Even prominent researchers who I will not name have essentially no useful logical, mathematical or statistical background, and therefore cannot see the forest for the trees. Look up poppers model of science for some insight onto how the pros do it.



I am even going to be running a few experiments here eventually, but for this exact moment I am lying low. The world seems to have become very hostile towards those who believe in the *spiritual.*
[edit on 24-6-2010 by darkbake]


This is simply because in all likelihood, your lack of critical thinking skills and inability to face the harsh reality of our universe are keeping you with the masses. Remember, us athiests are the minority. The "sheep" are the religious masses, or those that believe in the supernatural.

Arrggh. Rant over



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
But, unsurprisingly, you missed my point. Considering what you know now (experience, rationality, etc.), what is more logical: a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which came from nothing... arbitrarily, or a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which also came from nothing, but with the help of an intelligent source?


This has been brought up in literally every conversation on this topic. The simple answer is that we couldn't be having this conversation if the configuration was different. So it should be no surprise that we are. How are you to know how many other "universes" for lack of a better word do not have the necessary conditions for life?



Let me put it this way, (and this isn't an argument against evolution, I accept the theory of evolution) pretend you were actually a neanderthal for a moment, and you were walking around doing whatever it is that neanderthals did... when all of a sudden, you come across a piece of technology, a computer! Would you guess that it arbitrarily came from nothingness without the help of an intelligent source? I'd hope not. The universe is much more complicated than any computer, but for some strange reason it's considered logical to conclude that our universe did indeed arbitrarily come from nothing without the help of any outside intelligence. That's why I asked if any of you atheists have any examples of this actually occurring... Perhaps in nature?


Both of your positions are common logical fallacies (watchmaker, anthropic principle). You should spend some time reading the rebuttals which are all over the internet and thinking about why some of the smartest people on the planet find it so blindingly obvious and you don't.

When smarter people than I believe something that I don't, I make it a point to find out why, and really try to understand their position. It usually helps my thinking process, even if I don't agree with them in the end.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by xelamental]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 



Faith... ouch...


Wooo! You're sure going to be a lot of fun!


That's a painful word for atheists, but they all have it in one way or another. For example, the whole idea of science (and I love science btw) is that we as humans can observe our reality, experiment on it, and surmise various things using our rationality.


So your submitting the idea that our five senses and various instruments do not show the universe at all?! Gee golly, I wonder what the universe REALLY IS. Maybe you can clue us all in almighty one?


I hate to break this to you, atheists, but to trust in your own (or other's) rationality, as well as your own (or other's) faculties of perception is the definition of faith.


Really? I always thought faith was a belief in something without evidence. Maybe you should rewrite the dictionary definition. Hell, why stop at faith, maybe you can rewrite all words you wish to redefine for your arguments?


So, perhaps atheists shouldn't make faith out to be the bane of their existence. If i were an atheist, I'd just stick to the whole, "there's no empirical evidence" argument.


Sweet, someone who lacks reading comprehension skills, I love them types! I hate to break this to you, but that is what we've been saying. No evidence. One of the biggest reasons we don't believe in fact!


I just did.


OK, so because you redefined the word faith we now have to use your definition when using the word? Gee, IDK... I'm not sure that is how the English language works.


I think it'd do everyone some good if they looked up the word faith, before claiming that theism is all about faith and science is all about evidence. That couldn't be further from the truth.


OK. Let's look it up!


Faith
Science

Hm, it appears these definitions don't match your own newly made up definitions. I'm at a loss to explain this. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone as to why your definitions are not listed?


No. In regards to science, you need to place trust in your rationality, perception, and technology. In other words, you need faith. There's no getting around that fact. I'm also not going to repeat myself again... If you don't want to learn anything, then that's fine by me.


Don't want to learn anything? Ooooh, you mean YOUR defined terminologies?


I don't know where you got the idea that there is absolutely no evidence that there is a God. I think you're lumping empirical evidence together with evidence.


Interesting, empirical evidence is an actual defined term for you?

That particular usage is not defined as one whole term. Your lumping two words together that mean two thing's that when used together define a certain meaning as if they both mean something different.


The word "empirical" denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical


When we're talking about empirical evidence, we're talking about evidence that has been derived from experiment and observation rather than theory. It's not an entirely different word that has an entirely different meaning. The two words used together are conveying HOW the evidence is obtained.


I believe there is a God because the idea of singularity arbitrarily coming out of nothing, which expanded into a universe, which formed suns, planets, which then formed life... is all too much of a coincidence to be chalked up to mere chance. Of course it takes more faith to believe that an intelligent source is behind it all (there is no empirical evidence for a God after all), but I'm willing to make the leap because of how absurd the contrary conclusion is. As you can see, I'm using rationality (whether you think it poor or not) to conclude that there is a God.


Why not believe the universe was created from the anal drippings of a cosmic unicorn? It is no less rational than believing it be from some man made mythological entity you call God.

Science does not say the universe came from *nothing*. I personally do not subscribe to the Big Bang Theory as the theory is derived from gross miscalculations and inaccurate predictions, in my opinion. I personally favor an always existent universe as that is the only logical scenario I can personally conceive of. If a complex thing, like a universe requires creation by an intelligent creator then by default that creator becomes more complex than the created universe and thus by default requires creation itself. Now we're left with infinite regression, which is just stupid and devoid of logic. If we claim this creator always existed, then it is no less reasonable to assume the simpler scenario of an always existent universe.


Well, to start off, do you know of any examples of something as complex as the universe coming out of nothing without outside help?


What an ill thought out question. Do you?


If by "Zeus" you mean one all-knowing and all-powerful God who created everything, then yes. I thought that was obvious.


Zeus is not the biblical God. I thought that was obvious. Oh right, I forgot you have this insatiable desire to redefine everything to make your arguments work.


But, unsurprisingly, you missed my point. Considering what you know now (experience, rationality, etc.), what is more logical: a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which came from nothing... arbitrarily, or a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which also came from nothing, but with the help of an intelligent source?


Science does not say the singularity came from *nothing*, so the argument is devoid of any meaning whatsoever. You can't simply redefine or place meaning where meaning is not explicitly conveyed and pretend to be triumphant in argumentation.


Let me put it this way, (and this isn't an argument against evolution, I accept the theory of evolution) pretend you were actually a neanderthal for a moment, and you were walking around doing whatever it is that neanderthals did... when all of a sudden, you come across a piece of technology, a computer! Would you guess that it arbitrarily came from nothingness without the help of an intelligent source? I'd hope not. The universe is much more complicated than any computer, but for some strange reason it's considered logical to conclude that our universe did indeed arbitrarily come from nothing without the help of any outside intelligence. That's why I asked if any of you atheists have any examples of this actually occurring... Perhaps in nature?


Well, let's be realistic here. It's patently erroneous to attempt to compare the universe to a computer. We do not have the answer to origins and nor does any origins theory claim the universe came from *nothing*, hence the comparison of a universe to a computer being wrong. The computer can exist within this universe as the laws of the universe allow it to. Apparently you find something so simple as being something so complicated to understand.



That's exactly what I'm doing, because it's illogical that something as vast, complex, and orderly as the universe would come into existence arbitrarily. I'm glad we understand each other.


You can't simply invoke something without evidence and call it truth. You look utterly idiotic pretending that your made up, without evidence, reason for the universe should be respected or any more believed than the universe being born from the anal drippings of a cosmic unicorn.


It doesn't matter if singularity came from nothing or if there was an eternal variable that created singularity.


Your a hypocrite. Your claiming an eternal variable yourself, with the only difference being that your arbitrarily placing the requirement of intelligence upon this eternal variable. Your not to bright are you?


I'm more interested in why you think it's more reasonable to conclude that singularity and everything with it just happened arbitrarily, without any guidance. I find that highly illogical.


Your intelligent eternal variable is no less logical than exclaiming the universe was born from the anal drippings of a cosmic unicorn. That's what your "God" is... an anal dripping.


And whether or not there is empirical evidence for God shouldn't matter because it's exactly what I'd expect from such an entity. I wouldn't expect God to leave any strong evidence for His existence, because I think He wants us to use our brains. Look around the world... does anything look easy to you? I'd think it inconsistent for a God who doesn't appear to directly intervene with His own creation to leave conclusive evidence that He exists. Don't you agree? And like I told you before, if a being did swoop down and claim that he was God, there would be no good reason to believe him. It doesn't bother me like it does you that I don't have a snapshot of God surfing at His favorite beach. Even if I did have such a snapshot, no one would believe it was God anyway.


You have no evidence whatsoever for this God character, but then you feel confident enough that you can humanize and put in place human thoughts and emotions upon this God character. What makes humans so special? Ah right, we're egocentric narcissists.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 



How about this... what if God appeared before you this very second? Would you even trust in yourself enough to believe that you just saw God? No? Isn't that funny? But here you are whining about evidence...


How about you allow us to answer rather than assuming we would say no right off the bat. If there was evidence that the man made mythological entity called God really did exist as a real entity, then I would believe him to be a real entity. Would I worship him? No, why would I worship him?


If a being appeared before me and turned my coffee to WINE (not whine, lul), and then claimed to be my God, I wouldn't believe him! Never mind that, I wouldn't trust in myself to even go that far. I'd think I was going crazy.


You think you would go crazy if you saw a physical entity capable of doing feats you can't personally explain or fathom as to how they are possible? Well, that sums up everything I think....


Let's forget about empirical evidence when talking about an idea as complex as God. Maybe one day you'll put away your childish definitions and ideas of God, and then you'll understand.


Ah, so you propose we use YOUR definitions of God instead? Are you talking about the same biblical mythological entity called God, or have you created your own deity with borrowed characteristics and additional attributes?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



edit: Please don't do the immature thing and point out my contradiction


Yet, how can one not point out the blatant contradiction. Either you don't know what your real opinion is or you are simply a hypocrite arguing for the sake of argument.


You just couldn't help yourself little child!!! I know what my contradiction is, but it's not so serious to justify your childish remark, so please point out what you see as my contradiction, one that i maybe missed.

I don't argue for the sake of argument. I have a little challenge in making myself clear here, because my native language is not english and i'm still learning. And when you don't know all the fancy words in english i think my point could be misunderstood here. But please prove you're more intelligent than me, and argu with me in Danish, i took the time to learn your language.

And again with the hostile aproach. Here, my only hostile remark is the immature thing. In my above post i was never hostile only asking valid questions. But your hostile aproach just proved the validity of my question. Is atheists really that immature? Well, obviously not all are. But the question was mostly towards the ones who like to argue for their atheism. Their hostile aproach seems incredible immature to me, and when they are not hostile it doesn't seem as it's because of their maturity, but because they are afraid of other people thinking ill of them!!!

Well, again it's just my opinion, but please prove my point by being hostile and talk down to me. Maybe you're not even aware of it, maybe people who think they know better talk down to people subconsciously. Thankfully i'm mature enough to KNOW, that i don't know any better than you and vice versa.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



I find the atheists here to be extremly hostile. Why is that? Are atheists not mature enough to accept and understand when and why a believer is fighting for his/hers believes? Don't you have patience when you're an atheists?


Hostile? Where is this perceived hostility? Are we killing those religious people because they refuse to listen to logic and reason?


I also find this behavior with religious fundamentalist. They are fighting to give the best argument?


Best argument? Let's try that again.


I don't think that anybody is really right or wrong here. In my opinion, it's all subjective!! I understand when atheists are tired of religious fundamentalist trying to convert them and tell them to shut the f up, but many then get the immature desire to tell the believer why they are wrong or rather why they THINK the believer is wrong in every statement.


Ah, so it's immature when a religious person exclaims X scientific finding show's that Y religious belief is true when X shows Z to be true instead. Yes, it's entirely immature to correct someone when they're wrong. Let's go after teachers next for doing the same thing, it'll be great!


Worst thing is, i'm not really an atheist or religious, but when some religious dude ring on my door bell, i can't fight the desire to tell him/her how wrong they are in their belief.


And there you have it. Contradiction number one.


There is no evidence, the bible is obvious fiction, etc. But i don't really know. When the person leaves, i realize how immature and ignorant i just behaved. Don't know if any of you do the same thing in real life. But i can obviously see that you do on internet forums.


So you do it anyways and bitch at others for doing what you do?

I think that's called a bigoted hypocrite. Contradiction number two.


I'm glad i don't live in America where this battle is worst. I believe in some sort of God/Creator and believe that the God of the bible reflects the true nature of God in some way, and every argument i hear from and atheists sounds incredible ignorant to me.


Wait what? Contradiction number three.


Like there is something they don't get, like they can't wrap their heads around the subject, so they choose the easy way out and say there is no physical evidence, it's like they have blinded themself from the obvious vast amount of evidence there is. But then, when you look from the atheists point of view, i realize that's probably how they see the believers and that's why i believe it's all subjective. Why this battle is really pointless.


Yes, so pointless that you just had to jump in yourself. Contradiction number four.


You can't change a person or what they have choosen to believe in and what not to believe in. So why even try? In most cases, people get upset, to have their faith challenged or angry at people they BELIEVE to be ignorant!! Do an atheists really have the authority to create negative emotions in another human being and make them doubt their faith, just because they don't follow same rule of thought as he/she do? Do a believer on the other hand, have any authority on what another human being should accept as evidence and what not to accept? And why do so many believers take authority on who and what God really is?


Contradiction number five. Does a religious person have authority to cause negative emotions in an Atheist?


Atheist argue that terrible crimes have been committed in the name of religion and it's true. But atheism is just as dangerous. I live in a city where gang members keep shooting each other and more than often hits and kills innocent civilians because they believe they can get away with it, they don't think they ever will get punished, so they do horrible things. I have known some of these gang members personally and trust me, they do these things because they don't believe in any kind of God or spiritual world!!!


Contradiction number six.

Have you asked the gang members their spiritual beliefs?


I'm not saying that atheism is wrong, just that the statement that religion kills people and atheism don't is a load of sh.. Power is and has always been the ultimate factor. But i agree, religious murdereres is far more dangerous than a man who don't believe in God but just like to kill people.


Contradiction number seven.

Which is it? is Atheism just as dangerous or less dangerous?


I have faith than none of the mythological Gods exist, i don't know with certainty but i don't believe they exist in other words, i have faith in that they don't exists. It's funny how atheists keep claiming that it's not some sort of faith when you don't believe God exists. I really can't see how it's not. In Danish, faith and believe is combined into one word "tror" is that a coincidence?


Contradiction number eight.

Really? You just hypocritically claimed that the mythological deity God accurately portrays the true nature of some other entity you also call God.


I'm just rambling here!!! Happy to live in one of the least religious countries though. Atheists and believers don't hate each other so much


All I got out of this exercise was that your country of origin doesn't value education much.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



You just couldn't help yourself little child!!! I know what my contradiction is, but it's not so serious to justify your childish remark, so please point out what you see as my contradiction, one that i maybe missed.


Not so serious? Your all over the place in your previous reply!


I don't argue for the sake of argument. I have a little challenge in making myself clear here, because my native language is not english and i'm still learning. And when you don't know all the fancy words in english i think my point could be misunderstood here. But please prove you're more intelligent than me, and argu with me in Danish, i took the time to learn your language.


You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You said this was all pointless, but decided to argue anyways. Contradiction number nine.

Good for you for learning English. I have no desire to learn your language as I won't be visiting your country nor will I be frequenting any forums that only use your language. Use of language is not a sign of intelligence.


And again with the hostile aproach. Here, my only hostile remark is the immature thing. In my above post i was never hostile only asking valid questions. But your hostile aproach just proved the validity of my question. Is atheists really that immature? Well, obviously not all are. But the question was mostly towards the ones who like to argue for their atheism. Their hostile aproach seems incredible immature to me, and when they are not hostile it doesn't seem as it's because of their maturity, but because they are afraid of other people thinking ill of them!!!


Contradiction number ten. It's wrong for me to say something about your contradictions, but it's A-OK for you to bash Atheists.


Well, again it's just my opinion, but please prove my point by being hostile and talk down to me. Maybe you're not even aware of it, maybe people who think they know better talk down to people subconsciously. Thankfully i'm mature enough to KNOW, that i don't know any better than you and vice versa.


I'm talking down to you? You come into the thread, talk about how pointless the discussion is, then make an argument talking down to Atheists. Contradiction number eleven [snip]




Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
A reminder...

Please focus further responses on the Actual topic of discussion and Not each other.

Thank you.


» Origins and Creationism » Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
How much time have you spent researching things like NDE's/OBE's? I'm guessing you dismiss such things without even having studied them. It takes faith to dismiss something that you know next to nothing about.


I have studied them quite a bit seeing as my mother had an NDE and I have had a OBE. I don't dismiss them in any way. However, the causes of them are completely physical and cannot be traced to the supernatural.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Perhaps the end of this debate lies in finding a new word that means - I believe that no God exists, but I can't know it definitively because most of the makeup of the Universe and its history are unknown to me.

Perhaps an "Athnostic"?



The part that I underlined and bolded is the only part that counts. You're an atheist, not an agnostic.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I'm sorry 12m8keall2c, Just saw your post. Should i delete my post?


Originally posted by sirnex




Hostile? Where is this perceived hostility? Are we killing those religious people because they refuse to listen to logic and reason?


Either you just misunderstood alot of what i actually said or you twisted it to fit your agenda!!

Maybe hostile is not the right word!! But you do talk down to me!! That's my point.


Best argument? Let's try that again.


Well, are you not fighting to give the best argument, you wouldn't answer unless you did. It was meant both for the atheist and fundamentalists.


Ah, so it's immature when a religious person exclaims X scientific finding show's that Y religious belief is true when X shows Z to be true instead. Yes, it's entirely immature to correct someone when they're wrong. Let's go after teachers next for doing the same thing, it'll be great!


Well, it's not immature to tell somebody they are wrong according to the theories of facts. But if you have any understanding of human psychology, you would know that's not what a religious person want to hear or want to listen to. The desire to tell them is immature in my mind. Also you don't have the authority to tell the person that they are wrong, when you really don't know! Neither does the believer!!


And there you have it. Contradiction number one.


What's a contradiction here. I admit how wrong i am in doing the thing i does. I just can't help myself. Is it that you don't believe a non-religious person can believe in God, but not the God of the bible?


So you do it anyways and bitch at others for doing what you do?

I think that's called a bigoted hypocrite. Contradiction number two.


I'm sorry if you see me as bitching at others, i'm trying to explain the problem with my behavior and other athesits behaviors. Again not all are like this, but it seems like you are. At least on here.

And with the "bigoted hypocrite", you again talk down to me, with no authority to do so!!


Wait what? Contradiction number three.


Please explain what you see as a contradiction here. I'm saying that in my ears it sounds ignorant. I really don't think you understand where i'm coming from. I'm sorry if i can't explain myself properly here.


Yes, so pointless that you just had to jump in yourself. Contradiction number four.


Well, i felt i needed to jump to point out that this battle serves no purpose, because no matter what, atheist are not going to change their belief unless, they have an NDE or something and either are religious people, unless they choose to so themself or something. I don't know, but i don't believe any discussion has ever changed the mind of another persons beliefs. Just fuel up anger on the side which loses the argument, or maybe not lose, but gives the weakest argument.


Contradiction number five. Does a religious person have authority to cause negative emotions in an Atheist?


No of course not. Sorry if i did. Wasn't my intention. I'm not perfect either and not claiming to be, just trying to point the problem with the atheist/believer battle. But i can see i do a poor job in doing so.


Contradiction number six.

Have you asked the gang members their spiritual beliefs?


Why is that quote a contradiction?

Of course, i wouldn't state that if i didn't. I've been one. Of course nobody can know with certainty what another person believes and don't. But everything to do with the "supernatural" was a subject to laugh about. They have the same argument you guys have for why a God didn't exist, right before they would go out an rob somebody!! Just kidding, of course not always right before


Contradiction number seven.

Which is it? is Atheism just as dangerous or less dangerous?


This was the contradiction i found myself!!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by JokerzReality]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


You do know that Denmark is one of the most educated countries in the world. I even saw that in a American documentary they listed Denmark as number 1, where the U.S was number 20 or something, can't really remember. I saw it on National Geographic or Discovery Channel.


Not so serious? Your all over the place in your previous reply!


Yeah i tend to do that.


You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You said this was all pointless, but decided to argue anyways. Contradiction number nine.

Good for you for learning English. I have no desire to learn your language as I won't be visiting your country nor will I be frequenting any forums that only use your language. Use of language is not a sign of intelligence.


You think your are a mind reader or what. I'm only arguing with you know cause you talked down to me. I do think it's pointless, but that doesn't mean i can't get caught up in it to whern someone talk down to me, instead of pointing out my flaws in a friendly way.

Point taken about the language thing. Although i have an extremly unintelligent friend, and he can't talk english. Actually, many of the more unintelligent friends i have don't know a word of english, they need subtitles when seing a english movie. But you're right that you not knowing my language is a sign of unintelligence, that was a cheap shot or what you call it.


Contradiction number ten. It's wrong for me to say something about your contradictions, but it's A-OK for you to bash Atheists.


Actually it's wrong for you and for me. I shouldn't bash atheists. But you got to admit, you kind of enjoy this discussion don't you? And i believe that enjoying talking down to other people is immature.

But what's the contradiction? I never said it was A-OK for me.


I'm talking down to you? You come into the thread, talk about how pointless the discussion is, then make an argument talking down to Atheists. Contradiction number eleven


I thought i was talking down to both sides, not just atheists. But you're right, i do have a double-standard or what it's callled. But i was just trying to point out how hostile(for lack of knowledge of a better word) atheists can be, in a discussion that is really pointless and will most times only result in the other side leaving with negative emotions towards you. I know religious people do the same, but if you look through this thread, atheists are by far the worst when it comes to talking down to people.

Omg i'm sorry 12m8keall2c, just saw your post. Sorry to be Off topic!! Won't happen again

[edit on 26-6-2010 by JokerzReality]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by JokerzReality]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JokerzReality
 



Either you just misunderstood alot of what i actually said or you twisted it to fit your agenda!!

Maybe hostile is not the right word!! But you do talk down to me!! That's my point.


Your entire drivel of a post was nothing more than talking down to all Atheists. Hi I am an Atheist. You talk down to me. You get what you put in and if you're going to talk down to me for my beliefs and my rights to voice my opinions then you best damn well be prepared to receive the same treatment.


Well, are you not fighting to give the best argument, you wouldn't answer unless you did. It was meant both for the atheist and fundamentalists.


What? How am I not trying to give the best argument I can by pointing out the hypocrisies of religion? How is showing that a man made mythology is not an accurate depiction of reality in any way? Your simply clueless and indeed arguing for the sake of arguing whilst hypocritically talking down to others whilst demanding they don't treat you the same way.


Well, it's not immature to tell somebody they are wrong according to the theories of facts. But if you have any understanding of human psychology, you would know that's not what a religious person want to hear or want to listen to. The desire to tell them is immature in my mind. Also you don't have the authority to tell the person that they are wrong, when you really don't know! Neither does the believer!!


And yet it's A-OK for you to tell us what we can and can't do? Are you normally like this or is this just part of your arguing for the sake of arguing tactic? A statement was made about Atheists in this thread, we Atheists have a right to defend our position against such an erroneous statement.

Build a bridge.


What's a contradiction here. I admit how wrong i am in doing the thing i does. I just can't help myself. Is it that you don't believe a non-religious person can believe in God, but not the God of the bible?


The contradiction is you admitting to doing it whilst demanding we basically, knock it off because we don't have the right. Neither do you by your own argument.


I'm sorry if you see me as bitching at others, i'm trying to explain the problem with my behavior and other athesits behaviors. Again not all are like this, but it seems like you are. At least on here.

And with the "bigoted hypocrite", you again talk down to me, with no authority to do so!!


Who the hell are you to determine "Authority"? No one has the authority to limit my speech. Your talking down to all Atheists and to me right now and your telling me I HAVE NO AUTHORITY? Go look up what a bigoted hypocrite is, learn something.


Please explain what you see as a contradiction here. I'm saying that in my ears it sounds ignorant. I really don't think you understand where i'm coming from. I'm sorry if i can't explain myself properly here.


You've said you don't believe in God and do believe in God in the same post. You don't see the contradiction?


Well, i felt i needed to jump to point out that this battle serves no purpose, because no matter what, atheist are not going to change their belief unless, they have an NDE or something and either are religious people, unless they choose to so themself or something. I don't know, but i don't believe any discussion has ever changed the mind of another persons beliefs. Just fuel up anger on the side which loses the argument, or maybe not lose, but gives the weakest argument.


Speaking of weak arguments... Many Atheists have had NDE's and have remained Atheists. You can't simply call a discussion pointless and then fuel the fire yourself and tell everyone not to have an opinion on your interjected pointless argument of pointlessness.


No of course not. Sorry if i did. Wasn't my intention. I'm not perfect either and not claiming to be, just trying to point the problem with the atheist/believer battle. But i can see i do a poor job in doing so.


One thing you have to face in life is that people do not believe what you believe and that everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of differing opinions. If you take offense to something, build a bridge, grow a pair, and get over it.

Life is too short to play cry baby because someone's opinions hurt your poor little feelings.


Why is that quote a contradiction?

Of course, i wouldn't state that if i didn't. I've been one. Of course nobody can know with certainty what another person believes and don't. But everything to do with the "supernatural" was a subject to laugh about. They have the same argument you guys have for why a God didn't exist, right before they would go out an rob somebody!! Just kidding, of course not always right before


Please clarify.

You've been one, what? Religious, gang member?

You can't know with certainty what they believe but feel confident enough to determine what they believe without verifying that which they actually believe? Did you belong to one particular gang where the members were Atheistic? If so, does this mean EVERY DAMN GANG IS ATHEIST? How flipping insulting and inaccurate.


This was the contradiction i found myself!!


It's quiet sad that it was the only one you managed to find out of all others.


You do know that Denmark is one of the most educated countries in the world. I even saw that in a American documentary they listed Denmark as number 1, where the U.S was number 20 or something, can't really remember. I saw it on National Geographic or Discovery Channel.


Everyone has their bad apples I suppose. Sadly you are not making a very good representative for their education system.


Yeah i tend to do that.


Try slowing down and thinking really really hard what you want to say in a more clear and concise manner so that we can properly understand whatever meaning you wish to convey to us.


You think your are a mind reader or what. I'm only arguing with you know cause you talked down to me. I do think it's pointless, but that doesn't mean i can't get caught up in it to whern someone talk down to me, instead of pointing out my flaws in a friendly way.


Before your reply, you and I have had no previous discussion in this thread nor to my knowledge in any other thread relating to the topic of religion versus Atheism. You are a down right liar if you wish to pursue the argument that your initial post in which I replied to after it was made is any reason for you to make said post prior to any dealings between you and I over aforementioned post.

Unless there is some really weird screwed up time paradox you would like to clue us all in on of course.


Point taken about the language thing. Although i have an extremly unintelligent friend, and he can't talk english. Actually, many of the more unintelligent friends i have don't know a word of english, they need subtitles when seing a english movie. But you're right that you not knowing my language is a sign of unintelligence, that was a cheap shot or what you call it.


Aye, that was a cheap shot, and extremely ill thought out unintelligent cheap shot.


Actually it's wrong for you and for me. I shouldn't bash atheists. But you got to admit, you kind of enjoy this discussion don't you? And i believe that enjoying talking down to other people is immature.

But what's the contradiction? I never said it was A-OK for me.


Then by your own admission you are the very definition of a bigoted hypocrite. I don't know what else to tell you kiddo.


I thought i was talking down to both sides, not just atheists. But you're right, i do have a double-standard or what it's callled. But i was just trying to point out how hostile(for lack of knowledge of a better word) atheists can be, in a discussion that is really pointless and will most times only result in the other side leaving with negative emotions towards you. I know religious people do the same, but if you look through this thread, atheists are by far the worst when it comes to talking down to people.


What a crock. Show me one, just one little public gather of Atheists demanding the death or harm of religious people. I can provide plenty of such public gatherings of religious people spreading hatred, bigotry, threat and physical harm upon others. You show me how Atheists are worse.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join