are atheists a product of Murphy's law?

[scifes]

One thing I do not understand.
Why theists worry about atheists.

if you were an astronomer and you know a city will be hit with a meteor shower, would you worry?

we say it's coming they say it's not.. would you stop bothering?

 

[Emil]

if you were an astronomer and you know a city will be hit with a meteor shower, would you worry?

Yes

we say it's coming they say it's not.. would you stop bothering?

Yes

 

[GeoffP]

i can do that, it's just that you can't argue from your OWN position, you can't define or defend it, you keep reverting to what it might look from other people's prespectives... THAT is what i don't get.

Right, because your scope and comprehension are relatively limited.

forget atheists who for which god may or may not exist, for you he does, and you he's out of the scientific method's scope, god being the most important thing to us, what does that make the scientific method? what's its worth as a tool?

OK, well let us know when your version of God shows up.

i understand if you're angry because the question is clear and your inability to answer it is also clear.. but that's the penalty of being a hypocrite, no?

Hehe. Like I said: let us know when your version of God shows up. Supposition is worth nothing.

because nothing is worth eternal inescapable torture.

So you're a coward, then.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

007.050
YUSUFALI: The Companions of the Fire will call to the Companions of the Garden: "Pour down to us water or anything that Allah doth provide for your sustenance." They will say: "Both these things hath Allah forbidden to those who rejected Him.

Well that's a little rich! I mean those who go to hell just stay there forever without any terms of forgiveness? :shrug:

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Are theists a product of Murphy's law?

The argument given in the opening post (i.e. no argument) would seem to just as strongly support that position.

Agree?

James R elsewhere:
"And always remember the first rule of pedantry: if you're going to correct somebody on his spelling or grammar, make damn sure you get everything right yourself."

Love that split infinitive of yours, Jimmy.

But, no, Murphy's law makes no reference to any "argument."

"If there's any way to do it wrong, he will." - Murphy's law

What is clearly "wrong" is the insistence by atheists that there is no God.
They have not and cannot prove their thesis, but insist that Christians prove the opposite instead. This is utterly illogical, but that never seems to stop atheists from making their outrageous demands, nonetheless.

Are you with me, Jimmy.

 

[birch]

What is clearly "wrong" is the insistence by atheists that there is no God.
They have not and cannot prove their thesis, but insist that Christians prove the opposite instead. This is utterly illogical, but that never seems to stop atheists from making their outrageous demands, nonetheless.

what an utterly stupid post. it's also illogical to state god exists.

what is your fuking point?

this is a case of what errs more on the side of right or wrong and taking everything into consideration, atheists veer on the side of more right.

pay attention: atheists don't make the claim there is no god, if they do then it's the idiot atheists that fall for the bait when theists make claims.

only an idiot would state that they know for an objective fact (which could be proved to everyone) that god exists or doesn't exist. what's even further absurd is what the fuk is god? everyone's ideas can be wildly different and not even referring to the same thing but labeling it 'god'! it becomes almost preposterously and embarassingly silly.

saying that religion is man-made is another matter and is very obvious.

 

[420Joey]

what an utterly stupid post. it's also illogical to state god exists.

Illogical to state "God" exists? obviously thats an axiom, one can say its illogical to state God does not exist. Unless you have proof of creation, your speculations immaterial.

what is your fuking point?

this is a case of what errs more on the side of right or wrong and taking everything into consideration, atheists veer on the side of more right.

There are so many varities of theology and even athiest beliefs I dont understand what you really mean...

pay attention: atheists don't make the claim there is no god, if they do then it's the idiot atheists that fall for the bait when theists make claims.

only an idiot would state that they know for an objective fact (which could be proved to everyone) that god exists or doesn't exist. what's even further absurd is what the fuk is god? everyone's ideas can be wildly different and not even referring to the same thing but labeling it 'god'! it becomes almost preposterously and embarassingly silly.

I agree with you on your first 2 points I dont know about label of god being embarassingly silly though. I dont see how its even important.

What if nothing = infinity & god is that. What if there exists, every possibility, expression, dimension, perspective nothing is limited but our consiousness in this focal point of perception??

 

[birch]

What if nothing = infinity & god is that. What if there exists, every possibility, expression, dimension, perspective nothing is limited but our consiousness in this focal point of perception??

there is a difference between the experience of something and what something actually is.

the experience may be an indication of it's source but it doesn't necessarily correlate to what it actually is.

also, i think this is why a lot of theists think atheists are an empty shell is because atheists for the most part are focused on analyzing whereas theists are focused on the experience but equate that to mean a direct definition.

either way, anyone can label whatever is their god. on a nonphysical plane, intent or consciousness would probably be the closest we can come to identifying. as for objective facts (knock on wood), that's another story.

 

[NMSquirrel]

there is a difference between the experience of something and what something actually is.

the experience may be an indication of it's source but it doesn't necessarily correlate to what it actually is.

good point birch..
another way to put this is;
the description of the experience is limited by the vocabulary/experience of the man who describes it, this does not mean the man is wrong for trying to describe something that he is incapable of describing..but it also means there is a chance that the hearer will interpret that description according to the hearers vocabulary/experiences..

 

[scifes]

Right, because your scope and comprehension are relatively limited.

no it's not, i can see things from other peoples' perspectives as well as mine, you can do that too.
i can express my perspective when it is seen stupid from other perspectives.
you can't.
you care more for what others see in your perspective than what you see in it.
and so you hide yours, and argue and support theirs, seeking social acceptance.

forget atheists who for which god may or may not exist, for you he does, and you he's out of the scientific method's scope, god being the most important thing to us, what does that make the scientific method? what's its worth as a tool?

OK, well let us know when your version of God shows up.

what's that got to do with anything?
it's not an answer to my simple question.

So you're a coward, then.

the bravest kid is who is called "coward" by bullies, because he stands up to them and tells on them.
"coward" has a different depth depending on who it comes from,
if it comes from an emotional idiot who wants me to suffer infinite horrible torture because he doesn't like the law, and i'm too sensible to join him..
..then i'll take "coward" as a compliment

 

[phlogistician]

if god exists and is outside the scope of science then science is pretty much worthless.

Well, from our point of view, science is worthless. It created the computer you sit at, and all you do it use that product of science to spread your superstitions.

Of course, if you really did believe science was worthless, you'd go live in a cave, and abandon all the trappings of modern life. You haven't done that, so you can't believe it, and merely you are spouting meaningless prose. You probably haven't thought out half the things you come out with. Given many are illogical, I think this is the case.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I often think of joining the Amish..
go back and live and work where there is no electricity,and nothing but hand tools..simpler life..
then i realize there would be no T.V.
(smallville,warehouse 13,eureka)
then i think of my job as contractor..
would have hard time without power tools!
at the very least i could pry give up everything but a computer and the internet..(can find movies)

 

[jpappl]

Scifes,

You're obviously claiming to know that god exists.

So I have a question for you.

Do you believe that god answers your prayers ?

If you really needed this god to support you specifically, would he ?

 

[gmilam]

I often think of joining the Amish..
go back and live and work where there is no electricity,and nothing but hand tools..simpler life..
then i realize there would be no T.V.
(smallville,warehouse 13,eureka)
then i think of my job as contractor..
would have hard time without power tools!
at the very least i could pry give up everything but a computer and the internet..(can find movies)

LOL - I've thought about that.

I could even give up computers - and I earn my living as a programmer! But electricity... air conditioning... it gets hot in Texas in the summer.

And we haven't had it for that long. My great grandmother came to Texas in a covered wagon...

 

[NMSquirrel]

I could even give up computers - and I earn my living as a programmer! But electricity... air conditioning... it gets hot in Texas in the summer.

mmm..thats the spot..gotta have AC..