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.
In the case of the existence of God there is not a shred of evidence. Zilch.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by HotCopperSkull
In the case of the existence of God there is not a shred of evidence. Zilch.
There is evidence, you just choose to discount the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of people Jesus converted instantly when he performed his miracles, and the accounts of his very own disciples who had the courage to die believing in him and be crucified, men who walked with him and learned from him. You also discount the dozens of generations of christians who willingly died for their beliefs in him and loved him more than their own lives.
Millions of christians died at the hands of the Roman Empire, being fed to lions and thrown to gladiators for sport. Caesar Nero would dip christians in boiling pitch and then set them on fire to light his garden at night and he called them "Roman Candles" (where the modern firework gets it's name). Yet millions of christians lined up to take the place of those who died. Nero figured out how to discover christians and he devised a test. Nero would take the suspected christian and try to force them to worship pagan gods and to verbally renounce Jesus the Christ and if the people refused then they were christians. Do you really think that all those christians then and today would die for something we thought could be a lie? Do you think this is blind devotion? No, we can see him and you cannot. We were predestined to believe in him before the foundation of the earth was laid, we were predestined to love him, when no one else would and accept him when everyone else laughed at him and cursed him and spit on him. He who died for us, our King, our master, our friend and our brother who loved us more than anyone possibly ever could.
Now you know why we can die for him and in his name. Not a one of us can think about what the Romans did to him without feeling the anguish and the sorrow and pain of what he went through when he was innocent. Not a single one of us can think about his blood being spilled without tears welling up in our eyes. No one can understand us but our own brothers and sisters. You just do not know.
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by Borag the Horse
How can you respect a man that actively goes out of his way to try and destroy the peace of mind and comfort that believers have in the existence of God.
Not that a true believer would be swayed by the ramblings of an ignoramus like Dawkins, or any scientist for that matter. For those who say there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God, just clear your mind, Look around you and allow what you see to actually sink in, it really is not that hard.
edit on 24-2-2012 by kennyb72 because: Too much faith in my grammar
KennyB, So if everybody experiences in their own subjective way the same God, why do we have so many different types of Gods? Could it be you have no idea what you are talking about?
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hes doing a copout. I am 100% sure god exists. Why can't he be sure of his beliefs. He is a hypocrite. Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%. He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.
en.wikipedia.org...
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
atheism.about.com...