Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

a reply to: Akragon

Y0u think I'm just making it up?

Maybe? IDK

S0 is it faked 0r what?

a reply to: TzarChasm

You sound nonplussed. What part confused you? Crusaders have been destroying heretical records and artifacts for centuries. That's how you rewrite history.

I agree I d0 have that much kn0wedge Tzar My key b0ard is giving fits rite n0w

Man d0wn!
May day!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Akragon

Y0u think I'm just making it up?

Maybe? IDK

S0 is it faked 0r what?

No... i think it was made up by a zealous christian to promote his version of christianity

But buddhists do not believe Jesus was God

a reply to: Akragon

But buddhists do not believe Jesus was God

N0 I d0 reaiize what y0u are saying is true

And I dn0n't beIieve I said that did I IDK maybe I did I need a new keyb0ard

Atheists lack knowledge and want to sound smart (but they don't). Anyone with any time on his hands will know God exists. This is why all human civilizations, without any exception, found the existence of higher powers/ or a Higher Power. The first people to have time in human history were priests. They had all the time to found out and they did. Atheists... Please get dirty and get your hands into black magic, voodoo stuff for at least a decade of serious study (if you have the b*lls). Then come back. You'd be crazy to still think higher/invisible powers don't exist. This is exactly why Freemasons love (black/white) magic. It's the universal proof of higher power(s). Look what George Washington did for the cornerstone of the United States Capitol. It's straight-up "masonic" magic ... Yes, religions have been used to exploit people, so what ? Your Creator is real.

a reply to: IrateCanadian

God cannot be jealous. Jealousy is actually a sin, because it is an evil emotion of wanting to be someone else when you are supposed to be happy with what you have and are given regardless of others.

In the Bible, in Exodus, God says he is a jealous God...

I'm an atheist, not because you can't prove objectively your claimed infinite beyond measure supernatural God exists, but because I believe there is an abundance of objective evidence to prove he does not. That isn't me saying there is nothing greater than ourselves so to speak. It's me saying that the Bible, and Christian narratives, fall apart to any real scrutiny. The only evidence that Christians have that their God is real, is completely subjective. I'm prepared to have my mind changed, if any of you can offer up something objective.

originally posted by: IrateCanadian
a reply to: Klassified

You can actually trace a lot of "false Gods" through the Egyptians..

Just the egyptians? Aristotle said Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers Calami (aka Brahmin caste). Christianity likely created by Greek philopherser Apollonius (himself both Jesus and Paul) with help of his delphi priest friend Luke (Plutarch aka Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus).

So I think if you dig deeper, you will find that Gods from all religions are just fabrications of the human mind. That does not necessarily mean that God doesn't exist. It could mean that our human mind is incapable of grasping the true nature of God. So our concepts of 'God' , with so many meanings, becomes meaningless.

Saying all that, I do believe that spiritualism exists. That people of all religions can and do experience spiritualism.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
... I'm prepared to have my mind changed, if any of you can offer up something objective.

That's a little ironic after expressing all those subjective incorrect claims and opinions/beliefs just before that sentence. Can't say I'm convinced with your supposed openmindedness, expressed in a subjective claim* about one's own attitude, no doubt affected by the superiority complex I'm seeing demonstrated. (*: a claim expressed as if it's factual/absolute/certain/truthful/conclusive/correct, without error; all of these are synonyms. Signified by the expression 'I am', which signifies that a factual/absolute statement about oneself is to follow. The verb "is" after all being used in mathematics with the same purpose, namely with the symbol "=".)

I have a feeling the real situation is much more as described in the video below from 2:16 - 3:24 and 7:31 - 9:00, if you swap out the reaction: "that's been debunked" with "that's completely subjective". How convenient to subjectively label all the evidence for God's existence as "subjective" to have an excuse to subjectively dismiss it without any reasonable consideration or even a reasonable counterargument.

No need to watch anything else than the timeframes I mentioned, it might just confuse you more. 'Know thyself.' I don't think you really do at the moment.

Evidence for God's existence that no doubt won't tickle your ears and is likely to be subjectively labeled as "subjective" by you because of that (so no need to express it, that's what I'm implying here, don't bother, I'm quite familiar with that type of reaction to the actual conclusive evidence; this is just for those who actually do really want to know about the evidence, or to close the door to the complaint that still no evidence for God's existence was provided, or any distracting discussions about the burden of proof as the guys in that video are doing):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories (playlist)

These 2 videos are quite late in the playlist above, but you might not want to miss them (they're a bit dry, only audio really; and they are easier to understand if one is aware of the facts shown and discussed in the preceding videos in the playlist, especially the first 44, yes the facts that provide evidence for God's existence, i.e. the factual evidence, is quite extensive. Even those 44 don't cover everything. But the videos below go a bit more into why these facts provide evidence for God's existence, the first hints of that are already discussed throughout the first 44 videos, including a more detailed analysis of the evidence in the videos entitled "Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?", 33 and 34, and "Your cells—living libraries!", nr. 15; also audio with pictures so a bit dry):

a reply to: whereislogic

You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective apparently.

Your videos of "facts" are just a bunch of what ifs, cemented by your personal faith.

Where's the evidence to suggest YOUR God is responsible for everything?

Why can't it just as easily be any number of other claimed creator of everything?

So again, all you have is subjective and opinion.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
I see you're doing exactly what I suspected you would do.

I have a feeling the real situation is much more as described in the video below from 2:16 - 3:24 and 7:31 - 9:00, if you swap out the reaction: "that's been debunked" with "that's completely subjective". How convenient to subjectively label all the evidence for God's existence as "subjective" to have an excuse to subjectively dismiss it without any reasonable consideration or even a reasonable counterargument.

...
Evidence for God's existence that no doubt won't tickle your ears and is likely to be subjectively labeled as "subjective" by you because of that (so no need to express it, that's what I'm implying here, don't bother, ...):
...

Subjective = "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." (source: google)

I guess you couldn't resist demonstrating exactly what I said you "likely" would do. And I don't even have any special superhuman precognitive abilities.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
... I'm prepared to have my mind changed, if any of you can offer up something objective.

Hypocrisy = "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." (source: google)

Double standard = "a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another" (source: Merriam-Webster's dictionary)

"paint-with-a-broad-brush. (idiomatic) To describe a class of objects or a kind of phenomenon in general terms, without specific details and without attention to individual variations." (source: yourdictionary.com)

It's all "subjective" right? Doesn't even matter what it is, it's always "subjective" in your (subjective) opinion, in your eyes. So obvious to you, that one doesn't even need to mention any specific details in response to any of it, or address the different factual evidence individually? Dismissal-with-a-broad-brush?

a reply to: whereislogic

As I said, prepared to have my mind changed with something more than subjective evidence. In other words evidence that doesn't have alternative explanations. Evidence that isn't bias to your faith based beliefs. But that's exactly what you gave me, and toted it as fact. It wasn't. I want something indisputable.

Edit: Let's say for the sake of argument, you've convinced me there is a driving intelligent force out there. How are you going to demonstrate it's your God and not someone elses? How are you going to disprove a plethora of other religions and creation mythologies?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

And as I said, I have every reason not to believe your subjective opinion about your own supposed openmindedness. Therefore every reason not to engage you on your attempts to move the goalpost and change the subject by demanding evidence for a specific Creator. Which I know evidence for as well, even shared already, but you don't wanna hear it or acknowledge it.

Your supposed openmindedness to the evidence for a Creator is about as non-existent as described in the video with TJ Kirk vs Deflating Atheism. Just looking for a quick and easy excuse to dismiss it, and subjectively using the label "subjective" to do that.

You are entirely motivated by your feelings, tastes and opinions when thinking and arguing about this subject. Almost anything you bring up is subjective. Which is fairly commonplace anyway and says little about the validity of the things you bring up, or the relevant facts (such as the biomolecular machinery and technology that makes up life, and the logical consequences regarding a cause for that phenomenon, based on inductive reasoning).

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

a reply to: whereislogic

Your video gets things wrong in the first minute...

That's the start to very convincing argument, thanks.

Because you can't fathom things like evolution, and the Bible tells you so, God did it.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
... I'm prepared to have my mind changed, if any of you can offer up something objective.

If you really were that prepared to have your mind changed if someone can offer up something objective (in your subjective opinion of what is supposedly "objective" or not; which you have already demonstrated to not be very efficient in differentiating from what is "subjective" in your commentary or that of others), you would not demonstrate to be so susceptible to one-liners and popular memes in the form of straw man versions of the argument of induction regarding the existence of a Creator.

So I'm calling bogus on that supposed openmindedness to "something objective" that you claim to have. No offense, I have a hard time believing it based on the objective evidence, the facts regarding what you've said and what fallacious techniques you've used in your commentary. The double standards you have applied, the hypocrisy shown and the painting-with-a-broad brush. As well as your latest resort to a straw man version or subjective interpretation of the argument of induction regarding the existence of a wise Creator to paint-with-a-broad-brush the label "argument from ignorance" on all the collective evidence (the facts) related to this argument of induction (that all point in the same direction, towards the same conclusion by induction and thus strengthen the argument). All in an effort to justify your dismissal-with-a-broad-brush (first using the label "subjective", same fallacious technique or reasoning though, just a slightly different label in your last comment, without spelling out the label "argument from ignorance" but insinuating it, triggering it in those who are biased towards associating it with the actual argument of induction, and probably thinking of it, that label, yourself as well when making that last remark, perhaps even purposely trying to trigger it in those I just described).

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm done with this subject matter here. We have our polar opposite opinions on the subject, and of each other. I am sure it is as frustrating for you making points, as it is for me. You will never convince me of your position and I will never convince you. Chalk it up to whatever.. You may say it's because I'm not actually open minded like I claim. I would say it's because you've closed your mind off. What does it matter at the end of the day though? Idc. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I'm okay with that.

yeah whatever peace have fun with whatever your god is like in 2020

a reply to: whereislogic

I want to say a thing or two. I sometimes speak my opinions bluntly and rudely, without thinking. I have a habit of wording things in an antagonistic way, especially over the internet, and with subjects that are passionate to either side. I've done that a lot here, on ATS, not just to you, but to others as well. I'd like to apologize for that. I know I get condescending sometimes. I don't mean to offend. And while you may not believe it, I'm really not trying to brush you off and be one sided. It's hard to when I have my own strong views.. I would like to apologize to you, and others that may be reading this, for being rude and the like with my posts at times. Even if I disagree, I do appreciate the time I've seen you (and others) put into replies and posts. I need to def work on how I respond to people sometimes.

Have a good evening.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That's nice to say that, WakeUpBeer. Sometimes I get into a heated exchange too, but that happens to anyone.

Now as far as your atheist position, that's fine, as long as you're sincere and active in your search efforts for answers. Every belief/ relationship with the Higher Power has to come naturally and from you only, it's something personal. I've been an atheist too, but some spiritual experiences, made me change my mind.

It takes its own time, but just keep somewhere in the corner of your mind, that based on other people's experiences, there's definitely something higher than us out there.

Atheists will tell you they aren't wrong and atheists never lie. They will also tell you you're wrong and they never lie.

But they are also right when they are lying.

So do cultists lol


a reply to: Out6of9Balance