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

[VitalOne]

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!

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying that atheists assume that "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim must be 100% false", can you think of an experiment design that would verify if a soul/God/afterlife, etc...is true or false??? Can you think of an experiment design that would verify if the many-worlds-intepretation/Copenhagen/consicousness-causes-collapse/etc...interpretation is true or false? Oh..you can't?...well I can't either....just as how ancients couldn't do the same for electromagnetism, blackholes, etc......think of an experiment design then challenge...don't say oh its just false because I the atheist say so...

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!

I can apply that same logic to you....in 1950s the current "evidence" showed that electrons were the smallest particles of matter...is that true or false? Thats what evidence showed at the time....you would've believed that in the 1950s because you don't question science...you only question theism...similarly the current evidence has nothing for or against a soul, consciousness is still not fully explained by neural activity, etc...

 

[Godless]

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

Hense that's the flaw of the high school drop out! He don't understand the concept of an atom, or electron! duh!!

the other idiot:

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying that atheists assume that "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim must be 100% false

Then this here only shows that you really don't understand the atheist position. No atheist in their right mind would say with certainty a deity does not exist, cause making such an absolute statement would put him/her in the same position as the theist, he/she has to have evidence that he/she knows what identity to give to this entity.

Since no one, for over 3milliniums has given any identity to their god, gods, ghosts, goblins, leprechans, unicorns, and any vehicle of mystic nonsense, then these things are very veryveryveryvery UNLIKELY!! however one can't make an absolute statement, with out having full knowledge of what it is claimed to exist. So the atheistic argument is we don't believe your assertion on the lack of EVIDENCE that you have failed to present!!!

I can apply that same logic to you....in 1950s the current "evidence" showed that electrons were the smallest particles of matter...is that true or false? Thats what evidence showed at the time....you would've believed that in the 1950s because you don't question science...you only question theism...similarly the current evidence has nothing for or against a soul, consciousness is still not fully explained by neural activity, etc...

No it can't one does not compare fairy tale with science, yes we are still learning science, the theories will change, and other theories will be thrown out the window, however the theist argument is an absolute statement of knowledge, knowledge based on faith, not experiment i.e. discovery of observable phenomena. So do us a favor of not comparing these two again, you are truly showing your lack of understanding science, in a scientific forum!! duh!!

 

[superluminal]

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."

Isn't it interesting how time and time again we atheists lay it all out on the table and easily admit the possibility of some kind of "god", present evidence that, while not disproving god(s), fully supports a completely natural cosmos, and all the theists can do is make kilometer long posts that say essentially nothing?

The support of our position is simple, rational, and requires little more than a bit of honest observation and study. Theirs, on the other hand, requires an entire universe of mythology, denial of observed facts, and reliance on faith and the very untestability of their ideas. How intellectually bankrupt is that? At times I really feel sorry for them. Espousing religious faith as if that were something to be proud of. Quite the pity.

 

[superluminal]

Hense that's the flaw of the high school drop out! He don't understand the concept of an atom, or electron! duh!!

the other idiot:



Then this here only shows that you really don't understand the atheist position. No atheist in their right mind would say with certainty a deity does not exist, cause making such an absolute statement would put him/her in the same position as the theist, he/she has to have evidence that he/she knows what identity to give to this entity.

Since no one, for over 3milliniums has given any identity to their god, gods, ghosts, goblins, leprechans, unicorns, and any vehicle of mystic nonsense, then these things are very veryveryveryvery UNLIKELY!! however one can't make an absolute statement, with out having full knowledge of what it is claimed to exist. So the atheistic argument is we don't believe your assertion on the lack of EVIDENCE that you have failed to present!!!



No it can't one does not compare fairy tale with science, yes we are still learning science, the theories will change, and other theories will be thrown out the window, however the theist argument is an absolute statement of knowledge, knowledge based on faith, not experiment i.e. discovery of observable phenomena. So do us a favor of not comparing these two again, you are truly showing your lack of understanding science, in a scientific forum!! duh!!

Right on brotha! Testify!

 

[(Q)]

I see your point. No I don't. Who doesn't imagine?

Everyone imagines. But, there are those who are able to discern what they imagine to not be part of reality.

Again my proof that Christians are not the only ones who seem stupid.

I never said you or they were stupid, just that what you deem to be real is imagined.

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.

You have no proof whether I agree or not. You might convince yourself there is a god, as one can convince themselves any number of things.

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.

That's wouldn't be crap, that would then be reality.

I see it as proof you see it as non-sense.

What is your proof? Then I can tell you if it's nonsense or not.

Also you have no proof that He doesn't so where is your point?

The point is that anyone can say anything exists without having any proof, and convince themselves it does exist.

Notice when I said M*W opinion it was on Jesus actually living.

There is no evidence he existed. Most likely he was fabricated from similar stories of virgin births and resurrections told long before.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Everyone imagines. But, there are those who are able to discern what they imagine to not be part of reality.

I never said you or they were stupid, just that what you deem to be real is imagined.

You have no proof whether I agree or not. You might convince yourself there is a god, as one can convince themselves any number of things.

That's wouldn't be crap, that would then be reality.

What is your proof? Then I can tell you if it's nonsense or not.

The point is that anyone can say anything exists without having any proof, and convince themselves it does exist.

There is no evidence he existed. Most likely he was fabricated from similar stories of virgin births and resurrections told long before.

*************
M*W: I heard you call my name. Imaginations are a good thing, until they lead you astray. I once had a vivid imagination. I believed that god existed and that he loved me. I believed he was always there for me and would always be a comfort. But, somehow, I wasn't all that comforted. Any comforting I got, I gave to myself. So what was god's purpose in my life? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then I realized that god didn't exist. I was mad about that. I'd been lied to. Generations before me had lied to me. Generations after me, I had lied to them. I felt really remorseful about that. I had lied to my own children!

As for the gift of discernment, when I was a catholic I could discern bible passages. I thought I had a direct line to god. It was the gift of discernment that set me free. Boy did I ever have a strong gift of discernment!

I just wonder what happens to those others who have the gift of discernment. Do they really stay with catholicism? Do they really discern the truth as they read it in the bible? There is only one truth. That truth is there is no god. Anyone who says they have the gift of discernment, and is still a christian, is a liar. Avoid them at all costs!

 

[mountainhare]

Vital:

I'm saying that atheists assume that "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim must be 100% false",

And what you're saying is wrong. Please don't misrepresent atheists.

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless

“
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
”
Hense that's the flaw of the high school drop out! He don't understand the concept of an atom, or electron! duh!!

in the same way you have no clear understanding of the significance of god, nor the processes recommended for developing such an understanding nor the qualifications of any persons who have been successful applying such processes, just like the high school drop out has no clear understanding on what an electron is, nor the processes how one can detect one nor how to determine if a person is qualified in such a field (they determine that all such people are all equally disqualified)

 

[lightgigantic]

Isn't it interesting how time and time again we atheists lay it all out on the table and easily admit the possibility of some kind of "god", present evidence that, while not disproving god(s), fully supports a completely natural cosmos, and all the theists can do is make kilometer long posts that say essentially nothing?

The support of our position is simple, rational, and requires little more than a bit of honest observation and study. Theirs, on the other hand, requires an entire universe of mythology, denial of observed facts, and reliance on faith and the very untestability of their ideas. How intellectually bankrupt is that? At times I really feel sorry for them. Espousing religious faith as if that were something to be proud of. Quite the pity.

the point is that the testing is done by certain persons and not others - for instance why don't car mechanics test the claims of astronomers and why don't you take your car to an astronomer when it breaks down?

Its a fallacy of the atheist to determine that there is no prerequisite for validating claims about god's nature, since by any stretch of the imagination one would expect that understanding something about the nature of god would be more exclusive than either car mechanics or physics

 

[mountainhare]

It's funny how light assumes that if you deny God's existence, the fault obviously lies with you for not totally understanding God's nature.

Could it be even slightly possible that perhaps atheists such as superluminal are know what the God concept entails, and disbelieve it because they find it irrational nonsense? I find it incredibly arrogant that you would condemn anyone who does not conform with your ideology as 'ignorant'.

I also get the impression that you are implying that atheists are ill-equipped, or not qualified, to comment on the existence, or non-existence, of God. Pray tell, who is qualified? Theologians? Priests?

That's fascinating, because I find it debatable that theology is an area of expertise, any more than unicornology. IMHO, a 'unicornologist's' opinion on the issue of unicorns is no more authorative than a chef's opinion.

Likewise, I don't see why a theologians opinion on God is more valid or authorative than a gardener's. What matters is whether the stance they take is logically tenable, and can be supported via the production of empirical evidence.

 

[Satyr]

*************
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?

You ungrateful, uncivilized evil bitch!!

Religion benefits mankind and keeps the feeble-minded afraid and disciplined to the community’s welfare.

Attacking religion is no different than criticizing civilization.
You must be ill, and decrepit and lonely.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's funny how light assumes that if you deny God's existence, the fault obviously lies with you for not totally understanding God's nature.

only funny if you assume that god really doesn't exist

Could it be even slightly possible that perhaps atheists such as superluminal are know what the God concept entails, and disbelieve it because they find it irrational nonsense?

even a high school drop out is applying what they assume to be the logic of foundations for scientific truths for physics when they disregard electrons

I find it incredibly arrogant that you would condemn anyone who does not conform with your ideology as 'ignorant'.

I find it incredibly ignorant that a person would deny a given object without examining the qualities of the object or the means for verifying the object

I also get the impression that you are implying that atheists are ill-equipped, or not qualified, to comment on the existence, or non-existence, of God. Pray tell, who is qualified? Theologians? Priests?

Obviously an atheist is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of god, much like a car mechanic is not in a position to deny or confirm means for laser cooling atoms

That's fascinating, because I find it debatable that theology is an area of expertise, any more than unicornology. IMHO, a 'unicornologist's' opinion on the issue of unicorns is no more authorative than a chef's opinion.

a high school drop out would also be of the opinion that a physicists declaration about electrons is in the same category as unicorns - in other words this discussion actually becomes progressive when the atheist starts examining the means they have used to determine that god is imaginary, rather than making over bearing confidence statements which require faith to be accepted

Likewise, I don't see why a theologians opinion on God is more valid or authorative than a gardener's. What matters is whether the stance they take is logically tenable, and can be supported via the production of empirical evidence.

when you talk about something being evident, the next question is "evident to who?" - why is it that police hire forensic detectives to investigate crime scenes?

It s impossible to address the issue of knowledge without also addressing specialization - alternatively you can just wash your hands of the whole issue like a high school drop out deriding the notion of an electron

 

[Ogmios]

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

Well, unless He wanted it that way.

Since it is obvious (even to believers) that we have free will, God obviously wanted us to have free will, and all the things that come with it. And free will is not free if it cannot choose to do whatever it wills.

Also, God could manipulate all things to his favor, but then what would be the point of free will?

And having free will, and being able to do anything we want, would be pointless if we didn't suffer the consequences of our actions. Or reap the benefits.

Hell, The Text even says that man was part of the order of god, until they decided to do what they willed, against gods commands. And for that they got kicked out to where god did not rule, so they were free to do whatever they willed.

 

[SkinWalker]

Obviously an atheist is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of god, much like a car mechanic is not in a position to deny or confirm means for laser cooling atoms

And, by that same line of reasoning, we can also say that obviously the theist is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of god, much like the schizophrenic sociopath locked in a padded cell is in no position to deny or confirm the weather outside of a building he is barely aware of. The schizophrenic sociopath may have some "knowledge" of a god (or gods) that come to him/her in the night with advice on how best to handle those that don't believe or earn a seat in heaven. But I don't think we should take his/her word for it.

I would no more get my theistic knowledge from that schizophrenic sociopath locked in a padded cell than I would one that isn't.

 

[VitalOne]

Vital:

I'm saying that atheists assume that "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim must be 100% false"

And what you're saying is wrong. Please don't misrepresent atheists.

Explain how it misrepresents atheists, again there's no evidence for or against a soul, consciousness is not yet fully explained by neural activity, yet atheists insist its 100% false and there's a 0% chance of there being a soul, its all an imaginary fantasy

 

[SkinWalker]

Explain how it misrepresents atheists, again there's no evidence for or against a soul, consciousness is not yet full explained by neural activity, yet atheists insist its 100% false and there's a 0% chance of there being a soul, its all an imaginary fantasy

Perhaps you might be willing to cite the atheist(s) that made that comment? Your implication is that this is what atheists in general say, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to quote at least a single atheist at just sciforums, eh?

If not, would you be willing to retract or revise your assertion, since it is, after all, a misrepresentation of atheists?

 

[superluminal]

Explain how it misrepresents atheists, again there's no evidence for or against a soul, consciousness is not yet full explained by neural activity, yet atheists insist its 100% false and there's a 0% chance of there being a soul, its all an imaginary fantasy

It's been explained to you in this forum. You are now officially a liar or a dimwit or both.

superluminal:

Isn't it interesting how time and time again we atheists lay it all out on the table and easily admit the possibility of some kind of "god", present evidence that, while not disproving god(s), fully supports a completely natural cosmos, and all the theists can do is make kilometer long posts that say essentially nothing?

 

[VitalOne]

Then this here only shows that you really don't understand the atheist position. No atheist in their right mind would say with certainty a deity does not exist, cause making such an absolute statement would put him/her in the same position as the theist, he/she has to have evidence that he/she knows what identity to give to this entity.

Since no one, for over 3milliniums has given any identity to their god, gods, ghosts, goblins, leprechans, unicorns, and any vehicle of mystic nonsense, then these things are very veryveryveryvery UNLIKELY!! however one can't make an absolute statement, with out having full knowledge of what it is claimed to exist. So the atheistic argument is we don't believe your assertion on the lack of EVIDENCE that you have failed to present!!!

You basically agreed with what I said, no evidence exist, so the claim must be 100% false, and even worse you agree that no evidence can currently be gained (there's no experiment design that could verify if a soul/God/afterlife is true or false), yet you still request evidence from the theist, how ironic....

No it can't one does not compare fairy tale with science, yes we are still learning science, the theories will change, and other theories will be thrown out the window, however the theist argument is an absolute statement of knowledge, knowledge based on faith, not experiment i.e. discovery of observable phenomena. So do us a favor of not comparing these two again, you are truly showing your lack of understanding science, in a scientific forum!! duh!!

I can indeed compare the two. You see in the past ancient people had also accurate astronomical calculations, are those things also fairy tales? In the future times these astronomical calculations were verified to be true when new knowledge was gained, but before they could've been thought of as fairy-tales, fictional, etc...

It doesn't matter whether knowledge is based on faith or not, the truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence....

The actual truth, the actual reality of things would be very very very different from modern science....atheists agree yet firmly hold on to science like its fixed, unchanging, and has discovered all there is already

 

[superluminal]

You basically agreed with what I said, no evidence exist, so the claim must be 100% false,...

No he didn't.

 

[SkinWalker]

You see in the past ancient people had also accurate astronomical calculations, are those things also fairy tales?

People also had a lot of inaccurate astronomical calculations and assumptions. One wonders why you don't mention this as well.

atheists agree yet firmly hold on to science like its fixed, unchanging, and has discovered all there is already

I challenge you to cite a single atheist that has stated science is "fixed, unchanging and has discovered all there is already." Failing to meet this challenge, will you be willing to retract or revise your words?