And yet, few theologians would actually define God as such a being. That's why atheists are never satisfied. They aren't looking for God, as defined by the theists. They are looking for something else, that matches a definition that only the atheists follow. This is why the atheist's position is as ridiculous to the theist as the theist's is to the atheist.
And yet, few theologians would actually define God as such a being. That's why atheists are never satisfied. They aren't looking for God, as defined by the theists. They are looking for something else, that matches a definition that only the atheists follow. This is why the atheist's position is as ridiculous to the theist as the theist's is to the atheist.
See my comment above. You are looking for evidence of a definition of God that few theologians would ascribe. It is theologically unsound to try to define how God works. That is science, not theology. They are two different things. It's like the back-and-forth I saw earlier in this thread regarding how evolution doesn't address the beginning of the universe - well no kidding! It shouldn't! For an atheist to dismiss theism because it isn't science makes as much sense as dismissing evolution because it isn't cosmology.
True enough, but those are also generally treated more as a philosophy than a religion, at least in forums such as this (or so it would seem to me).
Ah, but that's just it. Distant locations exist whether you are in them or not. The future exists whether you are currently experiencing it or not.
Correct.
I am an atheist (I know you guys may be confused, I used to be a Jew). I do NOT deny the possibility of a god or deity. I just say that I won't believe it until I see some evidence. The burden of evidence is not on us, but you.
I have said previously in this forum (and I think I've seen the though echoed by others) that the burden of proof position is intellectually lazy. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to convince another person of their position. If you want to believe there is no God, you don't need to prove that to me in order to justify you disbelief, just as I don't need to prove anything to you to continue in my own belief. We can both continue along believing what we believe, not convincing either of their position. But when one of us wants to change the other person's mind, that person needs to have a legitimate argument, which will boil down to some sort of evidence or proof.
It's logically unsound to not ask these questions however. Just apologising for your lack of reasoning on the subject makes a poor argument.
Seems you have nothing but excuses.
Of course you think that, because you are guilty of a complete cop-out by saying 'It is theologically unsound to try to define how God works.'
But anyway, this bring us back to that Carl Sagan quote:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Theists make the claim that God exists, it's up to them to explain why this is a reasonable belief.
It's pretty lame to ask atheists to provide an argument for non-existence, although it has been done, time and again, but theists just ignore the logic and reason and cling to their myths anyway.
I am neither apologizing nor providing excuses. You are looking to explain one subject with approaches from another. That doesn't work in any other discipline on the face of the earth. Why would you expect it to work with these? (I also can't express the color green with algebra or the coordinates of my hometown with natural selection.) Logic and rational reasoning are components of science and math, not theology, geography, or history. Faith is a component of theology and religion, not science, math, etc. To try to combine these into a single framework is a silliness with which I don't bother wasting my time.
What's lame is to run around expecting everyone to justify their positions to others. If someone were to walk up to me on the street and try to get me to justify to them why I was wearing a blue shirt, I wouldn't waste my time trying to do so. On the other hand, if they were to come up to me and try to get me to change into a red shirt, it would be up to them to justify why I should change into a red shirt, not for me to justify why I'm wearing blue.
The more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence, sure. But that isn't really relevant to who needs to be proving what to whom. It is only relevant to the degree of proof required.
More excuses. It's quite sad that's all you have.
The thing you miss amidst all these excuses, is that the scientific method underpins all the separate disciplines you mention.
But then you makes excuses and say it doesn't apply to theology. That's just a cop out.
While churches have tax exempt status, no it's not. It's time that loophole was closed, and it's time theists started justifying themselves.
Really? You sure about that? Explain to me how the scientific method underpins geography? Or history? YOU'RE the one making excuses. Atheists don't want to acknowledge that theology has nothing to do with science as much as many uninformed theists. It's starting to look to me like the very notion that they are related is the hallmark of an uninformed individual - either in science or theology. If you're so certain they are related, explain to me how.
Do you even know why churches have tax exempt status? You're disdain for theology is obviously clouding your judgement. Chruches have tax exempt status because much of their income (in theory at least) goes to helping out the community. Your taxes (in theory at least) are supposed to be spent on helping out the community. Because churches do that with their money, they get tax-exempt status. It's like any non-profit organization. I'll be right there with you if you want to monitor the way churches spend their money, and adjust their taxability accordingly, but if you just hate the idea of God so much you don't want churches to even exist, I'm going to have to file you away in the same category as all the other religious fanatics. Fanaticism is the problem, not religion. Always has been, and always will be.
I agree with this for sure. The broader issue wrt taxes though are all the corporate loopholes as well.
I personally believe that chosing to believe in one 'God' or another simply creates a 'closed' mind on the subject. I am open to all ideas.
If you are going to follow a religion, you must shorly follow EVERY ASPECT of that religion, you cannot pick and choose. Hence, why i dont believe in a 'God', and therefore why i am an athiest!
If you are going to follow a religion, you must shorly follow EVERY ASPECT of that religion, you cannot pick and choose. Hence, why i dont believe in a 'God', and therefore why i am an athiest!
Geography, you never used a theodolite? Never gathered data, and recorded it? Made a map, interpolated data for elevation?
We look for data, written words, evidence, and formulate knowledge based upon that data, and try, as is the was with all sciences, not to let our personal viewpoint affect the outcome!
Nope, you got nothing BUT excuses.
That is just another groundless assertion on your part. Prove that science cannot be applied to theology first.
Thats an intresting thought too!
But none do follow it all. It clearly says in Leviticus that eating shellfish is an abomination, as is wearing clothes of mixed cloth. How many so-called christians wear poly-cotton shirts and eat prawns. Probably at the same time. But they see these things as anachronisms and excuse themselves, while still holding prejudices against homosexuals, the practice of which is an abomination too, just like wearing a poly cotton shirt. How many bigots have decried homosexuality while wearing poly cotton shirts I wonder. A fair few, I should think.
Material nature is defined as one of Gods' energies.
From Gods' perspective material energy is constantly going through changes from moment to moment. So everything just repeats itself, thus everything is
scheduled. The living entities that enter into the material energy come equipt with God in their hearts. Hence we are not purely material energy, nor spiritual energy. These living entities, due to their freewill, are able to change the course of their destiny by realising they are part and parcel of God, through the process of self-realisation (god-centered religion).
They're the ones who can communicate with God, perform miracles (if necessary), and change the world. God only intervenes when His devotees are at the point when they cry out to Him, when the demonic influence is completely over-whelming. These points usually occurr at points in time when one cycle is ending, and another one is due.
This is a very crude understanding of vedic philosophy. I dare say it can
be explained far better. But I'm interested to see how you react to this.
jan.
If you believe that, you are even more naive than I had thought.
Churches have tax exempt status because they have power over people. Money and power go hand in hand. Why do you think the Vatican is a bank FFS.
Jan, can you clear something up for me, ... in post #206 you said:
So, are you saying that you don't believe God is real here?
Jan Ardena said:
So, are you saying that you don't believe God is real here?