Did Muhammad ascend to heaven and descend, Messiah Jesus refutes this.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   


You said if proof mattered people would be Atheists.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yes I did, not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp for you brother.

Atheism is a refusal to believe in something without proof, to this day there is NO proof that a God has/will/does exist.

Therefore, with the absence of proof, we Atheists choose not to believe in something that Theists cannot prove.

It's a very simple concept.

Richard Dawkins once said: Technically we have to be agnostics about fairies, talking serpents, and flying teapots because we cannot prove that they DONT exist.


There is a common misconception that Atheist believe they can prove god doesn't exist, that is not true, we can never do that, in the same way you cannot prove a teapot isn't flying around in space somewhere.

edit on 9/17/2012 by raiders247 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Well then false witness I am.


Good luck to you bro, seems like you'll need it



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


I don't care how modern Atheists have chosen to define themselves, but here is a freebie Greek lesson. Atheist comes from the Greek. "A" (alpha, the negative) and "Theos" (God). So "Athiest" means " no God". And I don't know how familiar you are with the inversion principle, but all truth statements must be able to pass inversion. If you want to claim you have no belief in God, the inversion of that is a belief there is no God.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Inversion principle has no place in a rational mind.

We believe things when proof is there, and don't believe in imaginary things that cannot be proven.

Labels are labels but one thing is fact:

The onus is on the person making the claim, not the one asking for evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
An atheists morality comes from one simple principle, and that is do to others as you would want done to you.


I thought atheism was a simple "lack of belief in God"? You guys have organized principles now?

No, you're quite a ways off the mark there with that simplistic answer -- there are some atheists who think that there is a reasoned morality, some believe it is subjective, others cultural, others claim science has the answer.




What gave you that impression? If one had to make sure a pointless blanket statement, it would be that we're all born agnostic, in that we have no notion of whether God exists or not.


No one is born with a belief in a supernatural being, it is taught to them and most likely forced upon them. By your reasoning I could say we were born agnostics when it comes to fairies and leprechauns, but how much sense does that make?


It makes complete sense, because atheism is a negative assertion, while agnosticism is neutral. One might claim that "I need proof to believe" is a neutral statement, and if that's all it was, maybe, but no atheist says "I need proof to believe" and nothing else, because what they say is "I don't believe in God, because I need proof to believe."

A perfectly valid statement, don't get me wrong, I don't fault you for it, but it neither neutral, nor is it somehow "default" -- it's a conclusion that you came to.




Physics, actually.


I LOVE physics and science, but no where have I found a shred of evidence that supports a God's existence, and neither has physics or science. Just because something is amazing beyond comprehension doesn't automatically prove God.


Who said anything about being "amazing beyond comprehension"? And who said anything about "proving God"? You asked what led me to believe in God, and I answered you. I have no reason to think that it would lead you, or anyone else, to believe in God, and I'm not an evangelist, so I don't make an issue of my reasons, but you asked, so I told you.


The FACTS are: There is no proof of God


You recognize, I hope, that this is an irrational statement -- you are drawing an absolute conclusion on the basis of non-absolute observations.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


I'll remember that, thanks for the tip. From now on my stance is "I have no belief in the non-existence of God." Since it's the negative position, and as you say the inversion principle is irrational I don't have to provide any proof.

Very convienent.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



You recognize, I hope, that this is an irrational statement -- you are drawing an absolute conclusion on the basis of non-absolute observations.


Take notice above he claimed the inversion principle "has no place in the rational mind".



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the main point.

Theist made the claim that a god exists. So the burden of proof is on the theists since they made the claim, it's kinda how life works, you make a claim, you have to prove it.



I have no belief in the non-existence of God."


In order for that statement to make any sense, there would have to be proof that a god exists in the first place.

Why do theists have such a hard time understanding that they made a claim, now its up to them to prove it, and until that proof is presented, the rational mind will not believe in something just because it is claimed.

Do you believe in flying tea pots? ... Why not?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Take notice above he claimed the inversion principle "has no place in the rational mind".


Well, there's just no arguing with some people, lol.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the main point.

Theist made the claim that a god exists. So the burden of proof is on the theists since they made the claim, it's kinda how life works, you make a claim, you have to prove it.


Why do they have to prove anything?

I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe, so why do you think I need to prove something to you?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


You're the one who brought up "proof" in this discussion, in doing so advertised the legitimacy of Atheism.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I can't believe I missed such a crucial detail in Proverbs (the passage you quoted in your OP). I have read proverbs MANY times (probably one of the books I have read most in the bible) and I never noticed the significance of the very last verse you quoted. It never ceases to amaze me how such things can be revealed continually through out a persons life. Truly the LIVING word.


Indeed it is, and i danced around some of these things for months before i finally stumbled onto them. Obviously someone wants these things to be known and connections to be made. My journey on finding OT proof of Jesus started a year ago and i have found so many verses that i've decided to take a highlighter and go through the bible and mark these passages and link them to their NT fulfillments so that maybe someday when other people start asking questions they may find my bible and the answers they seek.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




I thought atheism was a simple "lack of belief in God"? You guys have organized principles now?


My atheism, along with many many others, is a lack of belief due to the absence of evidence. We have no organized principles, that in itself would be really no different than the religions we despise.

Not all Atheists are rational/logical people, many of them are just as deluded as religious people, so naturally there would be many conflicting ideas. My morality is simple because I don't see a need to complicate things more than they already are. I live by one principle and everything else really doesn't matter to me, I do to others as I would want done to me.



It makes complete sense, because atheism is a negative assertion, while agnosticism is neutral.


Again Atheism is not a negative assertion any more than abstinence is a sex position, it is a refusal to believe in a concept that has no evidence. If I make a claim tomorrow that I witnessed a talking zebra that flew me all around the world, I would have to back that claim with some kind of evidence. And if I didn't the logical position is to not believe me until I could prove it. Same goes for this God concept.

I was neutral for a long time claiming agnosticism, but then I realized living life like that gets you no where because then I'd have to be neutral about every single claim a man has ever made, including Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. So I choose the position to not believe without proof first, it's the natural thing to do.



Who said anything about being "amazing beyond comprehension'


You're right I assumed and that was my mistake. But in my experience when I ask someone that question and they respond with a "scientific" (for lack of better terms) word to explain what led them to believe, 100% of the time it was the awe of the universe and nature.



You recognize, I hope, that this is an irrational statement -- you are drawing an absolute conclusion on the basis of non-absolute observations.


Okay I'll rephrase: There has yet to be any discovery of evidence to prove a God exists.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the main point.

Theist made the claim that a god exists. So the burden of proof is on the theists since they made the claim, it's kinda how life works, you make a claim, you have to prove it.


Why do they have to prove anything?

I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe, so why do you think I need to prove something to you?


Because without proof you can believe in anything no matter how stupid it sounds or makes you look.

So guess what, I just took a ride on a UFO mothership with Charlie Sheen and Elvis Presley. Don't ask me to prove it, just take my word for it...


I don't care if you don't want to prove anything to me thats fine, but Theists need to prove their claim in order to be taken seriously by rational people.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You are so confused to what Atheism is and isn't I don't know what to say....

Still believe in Santa?

Why not?

Answer your own question and you will know why I am an Atheist



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




I never said there is proof of NO GOD

I said there is NO PROOF that a god does exist.

You should learn the difference between those two statements


Actually there's proof all around you. That air you're breathing that keeps you alive? There's proof. Do you see any other planets with life on them in the solar system? No and you won't, because everything else was made just so God could make Man, right here in the Goldielocks zone where conditions are just right for life.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You are so confused to what Atheism is and isn't I don't know what to say....

Still believe in Santa?

Why not?

Answer your own question and you will know why I am an Atheist



I'm not confused at all. I know what modern atheists have chosen to do to shield themselves from providing proof for a completely irrational position. It's a semantic slight of hand. Oh, and I do know Greek where the word originates. Atheist meàns "no god". The "A" is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, Alpha. It's the negative, or in Greek a way to say "no". Theist comes from "Theos", Greek for God. When this was poninted out to Bertrand Russell years ago he quickly changed his position to agnosticism, he never again had to lose a debate for failing to provide proof of an absolute stance he wasn't qualified to make.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




I never said there is proof of NO GOD

I said there is NO PROOF that a god does exist.

You should learn the difference between those two statements


Actually there's proof all around you. That air you're breathing that keeps you alive? There's proof. Do you see any other planets with life on them in the solar system? No and you won't, because everything else was made just so God could make Man, right here in the Goldielocks zone where conditions are just right for life.


You are making an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how something works, or why it works doesn't mean that God did it. No scientist in the world has proved that the air we breathe was created by a super natural being.

If you lived 1000 years ago you would have thought Tornado's and hurricanes are proof of god, but fast forward to modern times and we can scientifically explain why it happens, how etc.

People like you believe more in the "god of the gaps" then the god in your text. Your ignorance is no proof of God.




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the main point.

Theist made the claim that a god exists. So the burden of proof is on the theists since they made the claim, it's kinda how life works, you make a claim, you have to prove it.


Why do they have to prove anything?

I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe, so why do you think I need to prove something to you?


Because without proof you can believe in anything no matter how stupid it sounds or makes you look.

So guess what, I just took a ride on a UFO mothership with Charlie Sheen and Elvis Presley. Don't ask me to prove it, just take my word for it...


I don't care if you don't want to prove anything to me thats fine, but Theists need to prove their claim in order to be taken seriously by rational people.


You do not need proof to have faith, only 1 piece of evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 





Therefore, with the absence of proof, we Atheists choose not to believe in something that Theists cannot prove.


That's a rather foolish view of the matter. The blind leading the blind and both will fall into the ditch. It's a huge risk you're taking hanging all your "nonbeliefs" on tangible proof. We have a saying in archeaology "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you really believed there was no God you'd have no reason to frequent the religion forum to combat something you don't believe exists, yet you come here to do battle against him all the same. Quite the paradox you have there, to fight something you claim not to believe in, but you believe in him enough to fight him otherwise you wouldn't bother to come into the religion forum. So, you only prove to those of us who already believe that he does exist because you're doing what he wants which is to be spoken of to all the nations as is written in the OT.

So if you really want to cling to your "unbelief", coming to this forum is not the route for you. So, despite your diatribe about disbelieving, there's a little seed inside you that does, otherwise, you wouldn't be here to fight someone's imaginary friend in the sky.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join