What caused you to turn away from your faith?

Allah is the name of an arabian idol that was chosen to be the name of the god of Muhammad’s lie. YAVEH is The God of Abraham. --- quote from Adstar's post 140.

YAVEH is the name of a western idol that was chosen to be the name of the god of the Bible’s lie. Allah is The God of Islam.

----
IMHO, neither statement is true or false. Both are like these mutually contradictory ones:

Unicorns have short tails.
Unicorns have long tails.

Because all four are about things for which there is no evidence that they even exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Adstar
I asked so i may have the opportunity to answer them, I had the hope that you where not a pride filled person ...
Post #65 by Adstar
(1st post after asking)
What's this got to do with the existence of otherwise of God? This indicates your disagreement with God ... Disagreeing with God is no basis for disbelief in the existence of God.
"..."
Again What's this got to do with the existence or otherwise of God?
"..."
Where does it say this in the Bible? It never says this in the Bible. It is an interpretation ... you have heard from men.
"..."
And once again it has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
"..."
So once again your bringing up a point on 'church" doctrine that has no basis in scripture anyway as a support for atheism.
(The points you did properly address were continued in subsequent posts.)
Click to expand...
... if your rejection of the God of Abraham was based on the true message Of God rather then the traditions of men.
Click to expand...
I think you're misusing the word pride but more importantly, the post history of our intetaction speaks for itself.
A lot of people build their rejection of God based upon the faulty foundations of some religious interpretation of God.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to accuse me of rejecting the God of Abraham as depicted in the Bible then yes, I'm guilty as charged. But if you're trying to accuse me of rejecting God then I demand that you either show me what I have said that led you to this conclusion or retract this accusation as nothing more than a faulty conclusion based on your own personal prejudice. I can see why only .1% of your interactions lead to a "positive outcome". At least we can agree on one thing. The traditions of men are faulty.
 
Acitnoids said:
If you're trying to accuse me of rejecting the God of Abraham as depicted in the Bible then yes, I'm guilty as charged. But if you're trying to accuse me of rejecting God then I demand that you either show me what I have said that led you to this conclusion or retract this accusation as nothing more than a faulty conclusion based on your own personal prejudice. I can see why only .1% of your interactions lead to a "positive outcome". At least we can agree on one thing. The traditions of men are faulty.
Click to expand...

Well i believe the God of Abraham is correctly depicted in the Bible. So of course i charge you with rejecting the God of Abraham if you reject the God of Abraham as depicted in the Bible.

You have stated Here that you are guilty as charged. Why do you ask me to retract something you yourself declare yourself guilty of?

And if you have another construct of the God of Abraham that you do believe in, I would like to see where you obtain your knowledge of Him?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Billy T said:
Allah is the name of an arabian idol that was chosen to be the name of the god of Muhammad’s lie. YAVEH is The God of Abraham. --- quote from Adstar's post 140.

YAVEH is the name of a western idol that was chosen to be the name of the god of the Bible’s lie. Allah is The God of Islam.

-
Click to expand...

Your statement breaks down with your second point. YAVEH is Hebrew in origin. It comes from the east it is not western in origin at all.

You may have been more successful if you replaced YAVEH with jehovah.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Adstar said:
Your statement breaks down with your second point. YAVEH is Hebrew in origin. It comes from the east it is not western in origin at all. You may have been more successful if you replaced YAVEH with jehovah.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed the point of my post by focusing on exactly how the word for God should be spelled and ignoring the point of the post 141.

Point was that you (a christian) and followers of Islam both make mirror image claims that the other's POV is false.

Just like these two mutually contradiction claims:

Unicorns have long tails.
Unicorns have short tails.

The point was that all of these claims are about things for which there is no evidence. - Thus they all are equally valid or false nonsense.

Spelling term for god "jehovah" or "YAVovah" or "YAVEH" is not important to the point I was making. Respond to the point*, don't ignore it with a pointless diversion reply.


*Assuming you are capable of understanding the point.

PS
Note also that in the "ancient days" most everyone believed in witches, etc. (whatever they were told as a child) Also many now known to be false beliefs, such as: Sun went around the Earth, Earth was flat with dragons at the edges, etc. as there was no "scientific method" for falsifying beliefs. Your beliefs are more like those of ancient days. - Based on what you were told as a child.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adstar said:
Your statement breaks down with your second point. YAVEH is Hebrew in origin. It comes from the east it is not western in origin at all.

You may have been more successful if you replaced YAVEH with jehovah.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: YHWH, Jehovah...
You say tomayto, I say tomahto....
 
Billy T said:
You obviously missed the point of my post by focusing on exactly how the word for God should be spelled and ignoring the point of the post 141.

Point was that you (a christian) and followers of Islam both make mirror image claims that the other's POV is false.

Just like these two mutually contradiction claims:

Unicorns have long tails.
Unicorns have short tails.

The point was that all of these claims are about things for which there is no evidence. - Thus they all are equally valid or false nonsense.
Click to expand...


Wait one doggone minute here...

Unicorns really are in the Bible (King James Version)...

So what does that mean???

Hmmmm...

Ummm...

Houston we have a problem...:D
 
Last edited:
Adstar,

And your "own judgement" is that the God of the Bible is an accurate depiction of God.

You are apparently trusting in your "own judgement" on this.

According to your own words in Post #123...

Adstar said:
Pride comes before destruction and the prideful trust in their own judgement.
Click to expand...


I hope you are OK and are not headed for destruction like you say.
 
Originally Posted by Adstar
Well i believe the God of Abraham is correctly depicted in the Bible. So of course I charge you with rejecting the God of Abraham if you reject the God of Abraham as depicted in the Bible.
You have stated Here that you are guilty as charged. Why do you ask me to retract something you yourself declare yourself guilty of?
Click to expand...
You know as well as I do that the title 'The God of Abraham' was not invoked until Post #131:
Post #131 by Adstar
I am extremely confident in The God of Abraham and in the atonement of the Messiah Emmanuel (God with Us).
Click to expand...
Yet you repeatedly made this accusation in Post #65. In order for us to have any sort of future discourse you will have to meet my one and only demand (as stated in my last post). I can only uphold my own principals and because of this I must reject ALL manmade religion. This includes the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Hindu deities and yes, the Jewish God of Abraham. Doesn't 'The God of Abraham' signify that "this particular god" was first envisioned by a man named Abraham? The Bible happens to be one version of Abraham's philosophy and I've seen nothing to suggest that his vision was any less significant than Joseph Smith's (LDS) or Jim Jones's (the Peoples Temple). So of course I charge you with copping out. Now provide a source prior to Post #65 that can support your accusations or refute them as faulty judgement on your part.
 
John99: You do not seem to understand the basics of linguistics.
I dont think you understand the point. I am saying that Atheism CANNOT exist based on all the facts and the circumstances involved.

IF god were proven to exist Atheism would no longer exist.

IF god were proven NOT to exist Atheism would no longer exist.

Therefore, Atheism (by its own definition) CANNOT exist.
Click to expand...
The above is silly. Your argument is equivalent to declaring that the phrase A person who does not believe in any deity is a not allowed in a conversation or an essay.

If the concept of a deity did not exist in the mindscape, there would be no such word as Theist. In reality, a majority of the people in the world believe in the existence of one or more deities. For linguistic convenience, words/phrases like theist, Christian, Moslem, Roman Catholic, et cetera have come into use.

Note that these words are not absolutely necessary, but make conversations/essays about theology easier to construct and understand. For example, without the phase Roman Catholic, a person would have to describe the belief system associated with that phrase every time he/she wanted to write or speak about people who were Roman Catholics.

Without the word theist, certain conversations/essays would require the use of some phrase like “believers in “ followed by a long list of all the deities known to have believers.

Since the word theist provides convenience in and easier understanding of conversations/essays relating to religion/theology, it is similarly convenient to have a term like atheist to refer to those who do not believe in some deity. Otherwise it would be necessary to use some phrase like a person who is not a theist.
 
Dinosaur said:
John99: You do not seem to understand the basics of linguistics.The above is silly. Your argument is equivalent to declaring that the phrase A person who does not believe in any deity is a not allowed in a conversation or an essay.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter, weather it can be a part of a conversation or not.

If you say:

'i am an atheist'

what does that mean?

does it mean you know for sure there is no gods, deities etc.?

can you really know that though?

then you would say:

'i BELIEVE there are not any.'

And there is already a word for that. Atheism is an absolute, but the absolute is not proven.

I hope you understand, it is not what is 'more likely to be true'. If we were to go solely based from a linguistics standpoint then i cannot see how anyone can call themselves an atheist. Think of it this way:

Sexual
Asexual

We know that people have sex. Therefore i can use the term Asexual for someone who doe not.

Theist.

We know that they believe in a higher power\authority. But they TELL you they BELIEVE.

All this means is that the term Atheist can longer be used.

If the concept of a deity did not exist in the mindscape, there would be no such word as Theist. In reality, a majority of the people in the world believe in the existence of one or more deities. For linguistic convenience, words/phrases like theist, Christian, Moslem, Roman Catholic, et cetera have come into use.
Click to expand...

That is what they call themselves. You are not one of them, but why would you name yourself for not being one of them? And even if you did that would not make you an Atheist. Atheism is from Greek Mythology.
 
John99 said:
then you would say:

'i BELIEVE there are not any.'

And there is already a word for that. Atheism is an absolute, but the absolute is not proven.
Click to expand...
So what is this word for people who "BELIEVE there are not any" Gods... if it is not encapsulated within "atheism"?

Sexual
Asexual

We know that people have sex. Therefore i can use the term Asexual for someone who doe not.

Theist.

We know that they believe in a higher power\authority. But they TELL you they BELIEVE.

All this means is that the term Atheist can longer be used.
Click to expand...
I'm confused here... are you saying that because people call themselves theist that we CAN use the word Atheist?
Otherwise I'm lost... :confused:

That is what they call themselves. You are not one of them, but why would you name yourself for not being one of them? And even if you did that would not make you an Atheist. Atheism is from Greek Mythology.
Click to expand...
From "Greek Mythology"?
There is no myth surrounding the word.
There is merely the etymology that stems from the Greek.
 
Sarkus: Do you think there is anything to be gained by further argument with John99 relating to his view of the word atheist?

He seems to have a theist-like faith in his view.
 
What prerequisites are needed to declare oneself an Atheist? Um, have any of you read the sticky thread found at the top of the Religion sub-forum page entitled 'Definitions: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticim'? In my opinion, all of these require some degree of faith because there is no such thing as an absolute belief. You either believe that there is a god, believe that there are no gods or abstain from making a conclusion due to a lack of empirical evidence. I define faith in two ways, blind-faith and true-faith. The perpetuation of religion requires blind-faith while the advancement of science requires true-faith. The former demands submission and takes into account statements like "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so". The latter breads independence while saying things like "The answers to our questions will be reveales through future experimentation". Both command some sense of certainty that what we seek will be revealed but only one of the two can produce a visible truth. I view blind-faith as a scourge on society but true-faith, this perpetuates advancement. What is it about the word 'faith' that invokes a sense oc theism in a non-believers mind when none of us could get through the day without it? Without faith there would be no trust, no belief and no advancement in technology. Theists like to believe that they have a monopoly on faith and morality but I for one am not willing to sell my shares to them just yet.
 
Originally Posted by Neverfly
Are you claiming that a Lack of belief is a belief that requires faith?
Click to expand...
No. What I am claiming is that there is no such thing as a complete lack of belief and that all belief requires faith. In other words, a lack of belief in god constitutes a lack of faith in god but nobody can live without having a belief in something. Here's another way to look at it. The concepts of good and evil (subjectivity aside) can not exist without one another. They occupy a kind of superposition or social duality. The same can be said of belief and faith.
 
Acitnoids said:
What prerequisites are needed to declare oneself an Atheist? Um, have any of you read the sticky thread found at the top of the Religion sub-forum page entitled 'Definitions: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticim'? In my opinion, all of these require some degree of faith because there is no such thing as an absolute belief. You either believe that there is a god, believe that there are no gods or abstain from making a conclusion due to a lack of empirical evidence. I define faith in two ways, blind-faith and true-faith. The perpetuation of religion requires blind-faith while the advancement of science requires true-faith. The former demands submission and takes into account statements like "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so". The latter breads independence while saying things like "The answers to our questions will be reveales through future experimentation". Both command some sense of certainty that what we seek will be revealed but only one of the two can produce a visible truth. I view blind-faith as a scourge on society but true-faith, this perpetuates advancement. What is it about the word 'faith' that invokes a sense oc theism in a non-believers mind when none of us could get through the day without it? Without faith there would be no trust, no belief and no advancement in technology. Theists like to believe that they have a monopoly on faith and morality but I for one am not willing to sell my shares to them just yet.
Click to expand...
What is this sense of independence that permeates science?
For instance suppose that there is some scientific opinion about the nature of consciousness or the universe- how are such conclusions (conclusions that contextualize the person making the claim and exist beyond the grasp of the empirical realm) independent?

Or does it require the faith that all phenomena are ultimately empirical in order to be buoyant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top