What is an 'atheist'?

[Bishadi]

Oh,

Holy see, sea, si... ?

An atheist does God's work. If there is a god then He has a special feeling for atheists. People who have truly demonstrated the use of free will by not succumbing to mind numbing faith. God if He exists is a total unknown as no evidence exists to prove His being, and atheists are the only ones who have taken His absence to mean He doesn't exist, a totally logical and correct conclusion. As I said earlier, an atheist is somebody God would be proud of.

what a cool post

talk about hitting the "logic" button?!?!?


Wow!

can i kiss your ring?

 

[PieAreSquared]

can i kiss your ring?

it's amazing how many people don't understand the meaning behind that expression

 

[Lori_7]

The Holy Babble is usually claimed by theists to be infallible.

That's the exact opposite message.

 

[phlogistician]

Makes no difference under the circumstances.

It entirely does. I have made no claim, I have expressed an opinion that I do not believe the claims of others. It's subtle, but important.

I assume you are atheist. Right?
Discuss the attributes of God, as in "lack belief in.." regarding your world view.

Jan, THINK, how can I discuss the attributes of something I don't believe in? That would be like describing Unicorns, I could say 'Er, they look like horses, but with horns' and after that, I wouldn't know what else to say. Same goes for God, after the obvious, I don't know what attributes you think God has, so YOU need to explain those.

You should know me by know phlogo, I don't profess to have a God, as opposed to anothers idea of God. I see God as the one supreme being
defined in every scripture.

God of the Old Testament, or as described by Jesus in the NT? They clearly aren't the same God!

 

[phlogistician]

That's the exact opposite message.

OOooooh, let's explore this.

You come to believe that God is talking to you, due to the notion of God in the public conscious because of what is written in scripture, then the character as described turns up, and tells you that the reason you believe in him isn't accurate?

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

God of the Old Testament, or as described by Jesus in the NT? They clearly aren't the same God!

Why?

jan.

 

[Lori_7]

OOooooh, let's explore this.

You come to believe that God is talking to you, due to the notion of God in the public conscious because of what is written in scripture, then the character as described turns up, and tells you that the reason you believe in him isn't accurate?

i don't believe because of some notion written in scripture. honestly phlog, for as many times as i've reiterated that...would you catch on already please?

 

[phlogistician]

i don't believe because of some notion written in scripture. honestly phlog, for as many times as i've reiterated that...would you catch on already please?

Where did you get the idea that there was a God in the first place then?

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician,



Why?

jan.

Tell you what Jan, why don't you go read them both?

 

[Hapsburg]

What defines an atheist?

An atheist simply lacks belief in deity. It doesn't even have to be an active belief in deity's non-existence; in fact, most atheists are of the passive kind.
Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Tell you what Jan, why don't you go read them both?

If you don't want to discuss, then don't.
I doubt you can explain why the idea of God is incredible anyways,
and your constant dodging is evidence of this.

jan.

 

[Lori_7]

Where did you get the idea that there was a God in the first place then?

questioning the meaning of life. you know, the whole, "why am i here?" thing and questioning law...right vs wrong, biological, chemical, universal order.

i got to a point where i just wanted to know, if there was more to it than i could see, hear, taste, touch, and smell. if there was more to it than what met my eye. i didn't anticipate what that might be exactly. i was emphatically turned off to religion, except to think upon some objective observation that the outcomes of most major world religions were basically the same. you know...love is good, hate is bad, now let's contradict ourselves while we take all your money?

 

[phlogistician]

If you don't want to discuss, then don't.
I doubt you can explain why the idea of God is incredible anyways,
and your constant dodging is evidence of this.

jan.

Jan, I'm not dodging. I'm asking you to start the debate by giving me the attributes of your God, and so that we may discuss how likely I find each one.

Until you do that, I can't start. YOU have to take the first step here, and until you do, it's YOU who is dodging. I have already explained the futility in me trying to describe something I don't believe in, after all.

On the God of the OT, vs the God Jesus describes;

OT God: Vengeful, kills people, kills nations, commands people to kill, generally to be feared.

God JC describes: Loving, forgiving, kind.

Hmm, same guy? I don't think so.

 

[Bishadi]

An atheist simply lacks belief in deity.

what is a diety? For example: in many religions most suggest no descriptions fullfill the definition of (god)

so how can anyone place a definition to a diety and it be true?

It doesn't even have to be an active belief in deity's non-existence; in fact, most atheists are of the passive kind.

kind of like the unbiased to a definition?

 

[phlogistician]

questioning the meaning of life. you know, the whole, "why am i here?" thing and questioning law...right vs wrong, biological, chemical, universal order.

Me too. That's why I studied sciences.

i got to a point where i just wanted to know, if there was more to it than i could see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.

Me too, that's why I liked playing with microscopes.

Religion asks the right questions, but unfortunately, jumps to conclusions, and uses subjective reasoning to support those conclusions. We are not perfectly rational beings, and we must understand that. This is why science removes the self from experiments, so we cannot lead the results towards a conclusion.

This is also why scientific conclusions only have value if the experiment that derived them can be repeated and yield results that agree.

Now, religion unfortunately fails on the latter, so it's only fair to assume the religious method is flawed.

You might say that the scientific viewpoint isn't the only one. Well, you believe in science, every time you flick a light switch, pick up a phone, drive your car, or boot your PC, you are using the fruits of science. Abandoning that when subjectivity makes you feel different doesn't make sense. I've had some odd personal experiences, some quite spiritual, and after a bit of reflection, and self examination, understood the chain of events that lead to me to have them, and none of those explanations required anything mystic.

 

[Bishadi]

Jan, I'm not dodging. I'm asking you to start the debate by giving me the attributes of your God, and so that we may discuss how likely I find each one.

Until you do that, I can't start. YOU have to take the first step here, and until you do, it's YOU who is dodging. I have already explained the futility in me trying to describe something I don't believe in, after all.

On the God of the OT, vs the God Jesus describes;

OT God: Vengeful, kills people, kills nations, commands people to kill, generally to be feared.

God JC describes: Loving, forgiving, kind.

what about destroys the world, burns flesh from bone, many to their final end in judgment......

such that in the OT, a few tribes a few hundred or even thousands of men

in the NT; all of mankind are affected and a huge portion are to be fried (fire from the sky)

babylon is leveled (the cities of corruption and most have a few million now a days)

so proportionally; the newT suggests a massive amount of death in relation to the weeeeeeeeeeee few who are even said to have died from the flood and all the wars of the OT.

don't believe the NT is about niceguys and sweethearts forgiving as the NEWT is talking about the JUDGMENT unleashed by the 4 horseman


it aint gonna be pretty

listen to iron maiden..................runnnnnnnnnnn tooo theeeeeeeeeee hillllllllllllllllllllls,

runn 444444444444444yorrrrrr li-iiiiiiiiiiiiife

 

[phlogistician]

Bishadi, Revelations wasn't the words of JC, was it? No, now stop being tangential. Well, please, just stop being you, and try to be someone who can write sentences.

 

[Lori_7]

Me too. That's why I studied sciences.

no offense but, the sciences are rather obvious.

Me too, that's why I liked playing with microscopes.

well phlog, what if real things exist that you can not see with your eye, even with the aid of a microscope, or a telescope, or an imaging system? hmmm?

Religion asks the right questions, but unfortunately, jumps to conclusions, and uses subjective reasoning to support those conclusions. We are not perfectly rational beings, and we must understand that. This is why science removes the self from experiments, so we cannot lead the results towards a conclusion.

This is also why scientific conclusions only have value if the experiment that derived them can be repeated and yield results that agree.

Now, religion unfortunately fails on the latter, so it's only fair to assume the religious method is flawed.

You might say that the scientific viewpoint isn't the only one. Well, you believe in science, every time you flick a light switch, pick up a phone, drive your car, or boot your PC, you are using the fruits of science. Abandoning that when subjectivity makes you feel different doesn't make sense.

i don't abandon that. and if your reasoning is subjective, then who is to say that your reasoning isn't flawed even when observing objective things? which is in fact what i am proposing in regards to atheism.

also, i have found that the results of interactions with god and a relationship with god, among many people, are very much the same. this of course, having absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I've had some odd personal experiences, some quite spiritual, and after a bit of reflection, and self examination, understood the chain of events that lead to me to have them, and none of those explanations required anything mystic.

you said "spiritual". please do tell. *alluring dance*

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, Revelations wasn't the words of JC, was it?

who said it was other than from the implying of the religious; suggesting Jesus brought a 'new' testament but within find that jesus told a person, that when he leaves; follow the teachings of jacob

or even in the 'sermon' he (just as above, he is "said" to have told them) told them to bring to others the commands of Moses and not speak of the miracles. (basically to follow the damn rules; the main 6 of them Mark 10:19)

you post up that the OT god is not the same as the NT god; implying that the old is meaner than the new

and i say; your idea is wrong (the new is far nastier, than ever before, as the whole of mankind will be affected, this time)

what you may not have noticed is Rev is like a hodge-podge of the OT prophecies

and since Jesus did not 'bring in the judgment' then the OT and NT are talking about the same T (time to come; NOW)

 

[Bishadi]

no offense but, the sciences are rather obvious.

no, they are not!

they are completely "UNCERTAIN" (see heisenberg; QM)

it's a built in "principle" to any who know the math