If god were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, there would be no atheists.

[Medicine*Woman]

W61;1290847]What would be obvious to you. I mean what is real to you. LOL How do you know they didn't exist. That is your opinion. You can't prove that.

*************
M*W: Well, it's not just 'my' opinion. It's a mutual opinion of some smart guys. Although there are some other smart guys who believe Paul existed but swear he was a lunatic, so if he did, in fact, exist, that's what I'd call him. It's just too obvious that he was criminally insane or he didn't exist, but if he did exist, he had epilepsy and was prone to grand mal seisures like the time he fell off his horse on the Road to Damascus, hit his friggin head on a rock and saw the blaring sunlight he called Jesus. I personally think that if Paul existed, when he fell off his horse and bashed his head in, he was the first to say, "Jee-sus Christ!" Sorry, but his existence/non-existence theory is not my own. I guess in order to prove anything one would have to do extra-biblical research, and we both know christians don't do that.

Aside from that because that isn't the topic. Now there are Christians whose denomination is Catholic but then there is the religion called Catholicism. I don't believe that communion is literaly eating the body and drinking the blood of God. Again please explain how you know about Him if He doesn't exist

*************
M*W: Being atheist doesn't remove knowledge from one's head. It adds to it! I used to be a Roman Catholic who ate Jesus in the flesh and drank his actual blood. So as a Roman Catholic, Jesus existed to me, and I didn't think of him as being a metaphor of the sun. Let me make this a little more clear. I know about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, but they didn't exist. I know about Atticus Finch, but he didn't exist. So, why is it that you think because I'm an atheist that I don't know about Jesus? Us atheists probably know more about Jesus than you christians, and that's a fact... just ask and you'll be surprised about what we know!

Planing on writing a book. I am sorry for your trial that you went through and deeply upset on your conversion to atheism. Can I ask what you believed?

*************
M*W: Thank you for your sentiment, but please don't be upset that I chose to be an atheist. It didn't just 'happen' to me, because I was unlucky or something. I wasn't led into atheism by some cruel controlling freak. Atheism was revealed to me subtly until one day that light bulb went on in my head and realized what a farce christianity was -- a dangerous lie. I should feel sorry for you!

Like I mentioned above, I was raised in an agnostic home. God and religion was something we NEVER mentioned. They sent me to the local Baptist university, however, but I could never discuss my religious training in the house! I guess it was my dear old alma mater that shoved their religion down my throat. It wasn't until after I had children that I converted to Catholicism, and surely I did raise them as good Catholic children baptised before they were half-way out of my womb. Even today my two older adult kids (no pun intended) still try to reconvert me. It pains them to think their old mother is going to hell. So, I guess you could say I knew Jesus in a very personal sense since I ate his body and drank his blood (through the Roman Catholic 'mystery miracle' of transubstantiation).

I don't know if you believed as I did. Oh yea I am kinda upset for you not responding to my post on my thread, so can I ask Why?

*************
M*W: Refresh my memory. It's not like me to lose an opportunity to put in my two cents.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: If there were a god, and he had all the redeeming qualities of obviousness, no one would be an atheist. Why, then, can only christians see, hear, touch, smell, taste and feel their all-powerful, all-knowing god, but others can't?

there are lots of things that are all pervasive (or at least relatively all pervasive to our human existence) that are not so easily perceivable - like for instance why is it that only physicists can detect atoms?

SB 7.6.20-23: The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, who is infallible and indefatigable, is present in different forms of life, from the inert living beings [sthāvara], such as the plants, to Brahmā, the foremost created living being. He is also present in the varieties of material creations and in the material elements, the total material energy and the modes of material nature [sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa], as well as the unmanifested material nature and the false ego. Although He is one, He is present everywhere, and He is also the transcendental Supersoul, the cause of all causes, who is present as the observer in the cores of the hearts of all living entities. He is indicated as that which is pervaded and as the all-pervading Supersoul, but actually He cannot be indicated. He is changeless and undivided. He is simply perceived as the supreme sac-cid-ānanda [eternity, knowledge and bliss]. Being covered by the curtain of the external energy, to the atheist He appears nonexistent.

 

[Godless]

SB 7.6.20-23: The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, who is infallible and indefatigable, is present in different forms of life, from the inert living beings [sthāvara], such as the plants, to Brahmā, the foremost created living being. He is also present in the varieties of material creations and in the material elements, the total material energy and the modes of material nature [sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa], as well as the unmanifested material nature and the false ego. Although He is one, He is present everywhere, and He is also the transcendental Supersoul, the cause of all causes, who is present as the observer in the cores of the hearts of all living entities. He is indicated as that which is pervaded and as the all-pervading Supersoul, but actually He cannot be indicated. He is changeless and undivided. He is simply perceived as the supreme sac-cid-ānanda [eternity, knowledge and bliss]. Being covered by the curtain of the external energy, to the atheist He appears nonexistent.

And your emperical evidence for the bull shit above is?

 

[(Q)]

... I imagine ...

Precisely.

 

[(Q)]

That is your opinion. You can't prove that.

Believing in gods is YOUR opinion and YOU can't prove that either.

 

[lightgigantic]

And your emperical evidence for the bull shit above is?

In the two lines above the paragraph you quoted



(BTW - have I mentioned to you about the analogy of the high school drop's inability to perceive an electron......)

 

[VitalOne]

And your emperical evidence for the bull shit above is?

Your logic is fatally flawed, "if no evidence if currently avaiable for or against a reasonable idea, it must be 100% false".....in QM there's no evidence for or against the copanhegen interpretation or the many-worlds-interpretation, it doesn't make them automatically 100% false...

 

[superluminal]

Your logic is fatally flawed, "if no evidence if currently avaiable for or against a reasonable idea, it must be 100% false".....in QM there's no evidence for or against the copanhegen interpretation or the many-worlds-interpretation, it doesn't make them automatically 100% false...

A reasonable idea? What idea might that be? A god thingy? And please leave QM out of this. QM makes incredibly accurate predictions about everything in the universe, except gravity.

Your god thingy may have been a reasonable idea before the advent of science, but that time is long past. The reasonable thing to do is to just say, we currently know what we know, and the rest is just up for speculation. However, invoking a god(s), and all that implies, is just completely unwarranted. Which it is. Everything we see or do is far more readily explained by physical law as illuminated by science. What we can't yet explain, well, have patience.

 

[Baron Max]

Wow! Thanks, guys! I've finally touched a nerve! Bags 'o hot air! Yes! There is no return to insanity.

Do you believe in love, MW?

Can't see it; can't touch it; can't prove that it exists; can't even prove that the belief actually accomplishes anything; ....but most people actually believe in love. So ....is that also just bags o' hot air?

Baron Max

 

[superluminal]

Do you believe in love, MW?

Can't see it; can't touch it; can't prove that it exists; can't even prove that the belief actually accomplishes anything; ....but most people actually believe in love. So ....is that also just bags o' hot air?

Baron Max

Here we go again. Objectivie vs Subjective 101.

Love is a purely subjective feeling that no one claims "exists" as an entity in the world and therefore no one worries about proving. I don't have to prove my love for my family since I don't claim that it has any bearing on the objective world. I don't try to make people follow any rules that govern my love simply because I say so. On the other hand, god is claimed, by theists, to exist in the world as an objective entity. He makes stuff happen. We're supposed to devote our very lives to this god thingy. Well, god is now fully open to analysis, proof, and acceptance or dismissal based on real world testing.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Do you believe in love, MW?

Can't see it; can't touch it; can't prove that it exists; can't even prove that the belief actually accomplishes anything; ....but most people actually believe in love. So ....is that also just bags o' hot air?

Baron Max

*************
M*W: Yes, love exists. I have experienced love by seeing it, hearing it, smelling it, tasting it, touching it, and even wishing it on others, including my loved ones and my enemies.

 

[Warrior61]

*************
M*W: Well, it's not just 'my' opinion. It's a mutual opinion of some smart guys. Although there are some other smart guys who believe Paul existed but swear he was a lunatic, so if he did, in fact, exist, that's what I'd call him. It's just too obvious that he was criminally insane or he didn't exist, but if he did exist, he had epilepsy and was prone to grand mal seisures like the time he fell off his horse on the Road to Damascus, hit his friggin head on a rock and saw the blaring sunlight he called Jesus. I personally think that if Paul existed, when he fell off his horse and bashed his head in, he was the first to say, "Jee-sus Christ!" Sorry, but his existence/non-existence theory is not my own. I guess in order to prove anything one would have to do extra-biblical research, and we both know christians don't do that.

Again please show me how they didn't exist. I mean be honest that is just something you believe. The other thing I want to point out is how you stereotype. I know Christians are lazy but there are alot of lazy people. I know you are not saying me specifically but just know that your remarks do not lend any support to your argument.

*************
M*W: Being atheist doesn't remove knowledge from one's head. It adds to it! I used to be a Roman Catholic who ate Jesus in the flesh and drank his actual blood. So as a Roman Catholic, Jesus existed to me, and I didn't think of him as being a metaphor of the sun. Let me make this a little more clear. I know about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, but they didn't exist. I know about Atticus Finch, but he didn't exist. So, why is it that you think because I'm an atheist that I don't know about Jesus? Us atheists probably know more about Jesus than you christians, and that's a fact... just ask and you'll be surprised about what we know!

My point is you say He should make Himself known and I pointed out that He has. Notice everyone has the idea of "god." Just to point out if you are going to say something is a fact you might not want to include probably. You know more about Christianity than most Christians. I will grant you that as long as you take into context that I am not most Christians just like you are not most Atheists. So please just take that to heart.

*************
M*W: Thank you for your sentiment, but please don't be upset that I chose to be an atheist. It didn't just 'happen' to me, because I was unlucky or something. I wasn't led into atheism by some cruel controlling freak. Atheism was revealed to me subtly until one day that light bulb went on in my head and realized what a farce christianity was -- a dangerous lie. I should feel sorry for you!

You should feel sorry for me. Your belief of truth and you have repeatedly stated how you are compelled to teach then it wouldn't make sense if you didn't feel sorry for me. Also you don't hear me calling atheism a farce do you?

Like I mentioned above, I was raised in an agnostic home. God and religion was something we NEVER mentioned. They sent me to the local Baptist university, however, but I could never discuss my religious training in the house! I guess it was my dear old alma mater that shoved their religion down my throat. It wasn't until after I had children that I converted to Catholicism, and surely I did raise them as good Catholic children baptised before they were half-way out of my womb. Even today my two older adult kids (no pun intended) still try to reconvert me. It pains them to think their old mother is going to hell. So, I guess you could say I knew Jesus in a very personal sense since I ate his body and drank his blood (through the Roman Catholic 'mystery miracle' of transubstantiation).

Yea I don't believe in transubstantiation, that is nonsense. I also wanted to point out the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. It sounds to me that you were a Catholic not a Christian.

*************
M*W: Refresh my memory. It's not like me to lose an opportunity to put in my two cents.

It is on Christians: Your Thoughts. Go check it out.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

 

[Warrior61]

Precisely.

I see your point. No I don't. Who doesn't imagine? Please tell me. Again my proof that Christians are not the only ones who seem stupid.

Believing in gods is YOUR opinion and YOU can't prove that either.

You meant to say God is my opinion. My belief in God is true. I can prove that. I say I have proof for God you just do not agree. Please do not proceed to type in a bunch of bull crap on how if there were proof then everyone would believe no questions asked. I see it as proof you see it as non-sense. Also you have no proof that He doesn't so where is your point? Notice when I said M*W opinion it was on Jesus actually living. Please stick with the topic.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Again please show me how they didn't exist. I mean be honest that is just something you believe. The other thing I want to point out is how you stereotype. I know Christians are lazy but there are alot of lazy people. I know you are not saying me specifically but just know that your remarks do not lend any support to your argument.

*************
M*W: According to those who have researched the source of very ancient religions, mythic deities were simply metaphors for the sun and the gods of sun worship. (See my other thread on sun worship). Therefore, no gods have ever existed, regardless of their names, dates, locations and divinity.

My point is you say He should make Himself known and I pointed out that He has. Notice everyone has the idea of "god." Just to point out if you are going to say something is a fact you might not want to include probably. You know more about Christianity than most Christians. I will grant you that as long as you take into context that I am not most Christians just like you are not most Atheists. So please just take that to heart.

*************
M*W: I realize that whatever gods there be cannot make themselves known, because they don't exist.

You should feel sorry for me. Your belief of truth and you have repeatedly stated how you are compelled to teach then it wouldn't make sense if you didn't feel sorry for me. Also you don't hear me calling atheism a farce do you?

*************
M*W: Yes, I do have pity on those who believe in a deity that wasn't there in the past, is not here in the present, nor will be there in the future. I pity those people, because they may not have had the opportunity to learn the truth. Therefore, I believe it is my duty to spread the word.

Yea I don't believe in transubstantiation, that is nonsense. I also wanted to point out the difference between Christianity and Catholicism. It sounds to me that you were a Catholic not a Christian.

*************
M*W: There is really no difference between Roman Catholicism and christianity. Most protestant christians use this argument, but Roman Catholics are very much christian, maybe moreso than protestants.

It is on Christians: Your Thoughts. Go check it out.

*************
M*W: I'm going there now.

 

[VitalOne]

A reasonable idea? What idea might that be? A god thingy? And please leave QM out of this. QM makes incredibly accurate predictions about everything in the universe, except gravity.

I was using QM as an example, there's many interpretations but no empirical evidence distinguishing which (if any) is true or false...similarly, there's no evidence for or against a soul, consciousness is still unexplained, there's many different consciousness theories, etc...

Your god thingy may have been a reasonable idea before the advent of science, but that time is long past. The reasonable thing to do is to just say, we currently know what we know, and the rest is just up for speculation. However, invoking a god(s), and all that implies, is just completely unwarranted. Which it is. Everything we see or do is far more readily explained by physical law as illuminated by science. What we can't yet explain, well, have patience.

Right and I'm sure the many-worlds-theory or the Copenhagen interpretation could've seemed unreasonable or far-fetched before the advents of QM also....

Whats unreasonable about God being the unchanging, eternal, unborn observer, existing before the material world, after, and in between?

 

[superluminal]

Whats unreasonable about God being the unchanging, eternal, unborn observer, existing before the material world, after, and in between?

Say that out loud to yourself and then re-ask the question.

 

[VitalOne]

Say that out loud to yourself and then re-ask the question.

Nothing at all, the observer would have to be unborn, causeless, unchanging, eternal, etc....

 

[Godless]

Your logic is fatally flawed, "if no evidence if currently avaiable for or against a reasonable idea, it must be 100% false".

WTF? asking for evidence is not logically flawed, you make an assertion one wants the "facts" not the fantasy of your assertions. Back up what you claim, is that hard for you? Or plainly state, I have "faith" and that's all the evidence you need. I don't have faith in farie tale!

If I were to make the claim " I saw Zeus last night, and he told me that he was the one and true god" would you believe me? Where is the evidence of my assertion you would require evidence that Zeus is real!. Are you a A-zeusist? do you not believe in Zeus, then you too are an atheist, you don't believe in a god that existed for many people in the past, this makes you an atheist of that god, the only difference between us is I believe in one less god then you do!

 

[lightgigantic]

WTF? asking for evidence is not logically flawed, you make an assertion one wants the "facts" not the fantasy of your assertions. Back up what you claim, is that hard for you? Or plainly state, I have "faith" and that's all the evidence you need. I don't have faith in farie tale!

there is the separate issue whether you are qualified to validate or invalidate the claims being made, which I would argue is the essence of your flaw

If I were to make the claim " I saw Zeus last night, and he told me that he was the one and true god" would you believe me? Where is the evidence of my assertion you would require evidence that Zeus is real!.

an ability to comprehend simple theistic general principles would help - actually you are right - there are many sentimental theists in the world who border on the looney, and they can be rejected just like your claims can be rejected (ie you appear to be completely bereft of the relevant qualifications - just like I could start a discussion about the polemics of interspatial thermal cell walls and perhaps only convince those uneducated in science)

Are you a A-zeusist? do you not believe in Zeus, then you too are an atheist, you don't believe in a god that existed for many people in the past, this makes you an atheist of that god, the only difference between us is I believe in one less god then you do!

the only difference between a pregnant woman and a virgin is that the virgin has had sex at least one less time than the mother to be.

Say that out loud to yourself and then re-ask the question.

the notion only appears to absurd to one who has the needs and concerns of an atheist

 

[SkinWalker]

there is the separate issue whether you are qualified to validate or invalidate the claims being made, which I would argue is the essence of your flaw

Ahh... yes. The cowardly response again. Rather than address issues head on, it *is* handy to be able to simply say there's no need since your opponent is "unqualified" to hear the answer. The reality, of course, is that you're unable to give the answer and too big of a coward to just say, "I don't know."