atheism and its follower are not bright

[emilynghiem]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

 

[emilynghiem]

Something did not come from nothing

Well, what THING is GOD?
And if God is not a thing, then it is Creationism that believes everything came from nothing!!!!!

Dear edthecynic
Depending on the context
God can either mean Nature itself or the source of all Nature Life Universal laws.

If you are nontheistic I would guess you would more likely relate to God as meaning the total sum of all knowledge laws energy and forces in existence.

Ie what is the collective ultimate absolute greatest of all.

Do we agree that whatever is the highest of all is the equivalent of what people mean by God, whether we use secular nontheist terms or if we personify these forces or source of life into a deified figure. And because there are multiple facets and manifestations of this life energy and laws in the universe, then ppl use or attach different names for God to specific aspects.

Like God as love or good will to all.
God as wisdom or truth.
God as nature or life.
God as creation, creator or universal laws.

Are you okay with saying that Any of these faith based reflections is still pointing to the one source that ppl refer to as God for any or all of these, individually or collectively.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

 

[PK1]

Something did not come from nothing

Well, what THING is GOD?
And if God is not a thing, then it is Creationism that believes everything came from nothing!!!!!

Dear edthecynic
Depending on the context
God can either mean Nature itself or the source of all Nature Life Universal laws.

If you are nontheistic I would guess you would more likely relate to God as meaning the total sum of all knowledge laws energy and forces in existence.

Ie what is the collective ultimate absolute greatest of all.

Do we agree that whatever is the highest of all is the equivalent of what people mean by God, whether we use secular nontheist terms or if we personify these forces or source of life into a deified figure. And because there are multiple facets and manifestations of this life energy and laws in the universe, then ppl use or attach different names for God to specific aspects.

Like God as love or good will to all.
God as wisdom or truth.
God as nature or life.
God as creation, creator or universal laws.

Are you okay with saying that Any of these faith based reflections is still pointing to the one source that ppl refer to as God for any or all of these, individually or collectively.

---
You make a good case for the rationality of Ignosticism.
.

 

[PK1]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

---
Theism is logical at the level of a 3-yr-old child. Santa Claus makes sense too at that age of intellectual development.
.

 

[turzovka]

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

---
Theism is logical at the level of a 3-yr-old child. Santa Claus makes sense too at that age of intellectual development.
.

According to a person without logic or language to explore contradictions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Antigodists, as opposed to atheists, if you try to take religious values out of politics, you will be crushed politically and socially.

 

[alang1216]

Antigodists, as opposed to atheists, if you try to take religious values out of politics, you will be crushed politically and socially.

Actually taking religious values out of politics has been the trend in the West for a long time:
- banning Sharia Law
- legalizing abortion
- restricting the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism
- removal of "Blue" laws

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are actions. The attempt to remove religious values in politics will result in the crushing of the atheistic and agnostic agenda.

 

[NoNukes]

I am a Christian but can see value in other faith systems.

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

You are painting all of us with one broad brush, so you are the one who is not too smart.

 

[alang1216]

Those are actions. The attempt to remove religious values in politics will result in the crushing of the atheistic and agnostic agenda.

Removing religious values is not an action? Are you serious?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am a Christian but can see value in other faith systems.

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

You are painting all of us with one broad brush, so you are the one who is not too smart.

I am having fun painting you as some of you paint us.

You noticed it, so do counsel your brethren and sisters to be generous as they wish theists to be generous to them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are actions. The attempt to remove religious values in politics will result in the crushing of the atheistic and agnostic agenda.

Removing religious values is not an action? Are you serious?

Those actions are supported by some religionists, and some are not. The theistic community when it comes to politics is fractious as the antiGodist, atheistic, and agnostic communities.

In America, everyone gets to bring their secular and religious values to the political system.

The difference is that neither the Atheists gets a government Temple of Wisdom nor the theist a Temple to God.

 

[NoNukes]

I am a Christian but can see value in other faith systems.

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

You are painting all of us with one broad brush, so you are the one who is not too smart.

I am having fun painting you as some of you paint us.

You noticed it, so do counsel your brethren and sisters to be generous as they wish theists to be generous to them.

I have never said anything towards a believer, I just want to be left alone for my beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am a Christian but can see value in other faith systems.

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

You are painting all of us with one broad brush, so you are the one who is not too smart.

I am having fun painting you as some of you paint us.

You noticed it, so do counsel your brethren and sisters to be generous as they wish theists to be generous to them.

I have never said anything towards a believer, I just want to be left alone for my beliefs.

Thank you, and I wish the antiGodists and crazy far right theists do the same.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

Thank you turzovka
The way I envision proving a consensus on God is by AGREEMENT.
This is still faith based. So it is a matter of each person having their own "faith based understanding,"
and all of us AGREEING we are talking about the same thing/same source even if our ways vary a bit.
Fair enough?

It's like acknowledging NONE of us can PROVE "what we dreamed last night"
But if we all agree what DREAMS means and what we are referring to,
we can generally AGREE we are talking about the same thing.
Though we can't technically prove the content.

 

[emilynghiem]

Something did not come from nothing

Well, what THING is GOD?
And if God is not a thing, then it is Creationism that believes everything came from nothing!!!!!

Dear edthecynic
Depending on the context
God can either mean Nature itself or the source of all Nature Life Universal laws.

If you are nontheistic I would guess you would more likely relate to God as meaning the total sum of all knowledge laws energy and forces in existence.

Ie what is the collective ultimate absolute greatest of all.

Do we agree that whatever is the highest of all is the equivalent of what people mean by God, whether we use secular nontheist terms or if we personify these forces or source of life into a deified figure. And because there are multiple facets and manifestations of this life energy and laws in the universe, then ppl use or attach different names for God to specific aspects.

Like God as love or good will to all.
God as wisdom or truth.
God as nature or life.
God as creation, creator or universal laws.

Are you okay with saying that Any of these faith based reflections is still pointing to the one source that ppl refer to as God for any or all of these, individually or collectively.

---
You make a good case for the rationality of Ignosticism.
.

Thank you PK1 for an interesting comment and reference.
When I looked up Ignosticism it seems to be the opposite: it is saying there is no meaning of God that can be established, while I am saying that ALL meanings of God can be included. That God has infinite meanings.
I can list some of the major ones that major religions tend to focus on. But each person has their own take on this, on LIFE, so there are as many versions as there are people in existence. We can at best come up with general models and reach an agreement/consensus these are all seeking to define/describe the same source.

 

[emilynghiem]

Antigodists, as opposed to atheists, if you try to take religious values out of politics, you will be crushed politically and socially.

And JakeStarkey maybe that crushing process is part of social development.
The Bible refers to the threshing of wheat to separate the parts.
We do need to separate what is our personal biased beliefs that our affiliated groups support which we choose,
vs. what is public policy for everyone that our entire nation agrees to (and what is on the state level in between).

 

[Syriusly]

syriusly has neither the language or the logic to disprove the existence of God.

For instance: not collecting stamps has no faith implication, none; atheism is loaded with faith implication, completely,

Why would I have any need to disprove the existence of God, Thor, Bigfoot or Atlantis?

I have yet to see anyone have the language or the logic to prove the existence of a god- ANY god- out of the thousands and thousands of gods humans worship- or have worshiped.

Not believing in your fairy tales has no more faith implications than not collecting stamps has hobby implications.

If you have no need, then you are comfortable in your faith, which is fine. Just don't sugar coat with pseudo-intellectual nonsense..

From the beginning I have been very clear- I don't believe in a god- any god.

There is nothing pseudo intellectual about it- I don't have to spend time pondering why I don't believe the fairy tales that you or others believe in- any more than I have to ponder why I don't collect stamps, like millions of Americans do.

I just don't.

And I don't go around calling you stupid because you happen to believe in your fairy tales.

Matter of fact, except for when people insist on telling me that I am stupid for not believing in those fairy tales, or that I or others should be living our lives according to their interpretation of those fairy tales- I am very respectful of people of faith. Believe what you will believe.

My advice to you then is to not knock theists when you get the chance. We are far more numerous and very capable and outing pseudo-intellectual atheist nonsense.

Yes, let's each believe that which we want and support each other's right to do so.

What a load of crap from the person who started a thread calling atheists 'not bright'

I have never started any thread attacking anyone of faith for their faith. As I said- unless someone likes you specifically provokes a confrontation on behalf of your beliefs because I don't believe in your beliefs I am fine with you believing whatever you want.

But when you- and others like you- attack me for doing nothing other than not agreeing with you- then I will be very specific in my responses.

So far you haven't proven yourself capable of even supporting your own faith- let alone 'outing pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Why you choose your obnoxious attack on all atheists I don't know.

No more than I know why you believe in your fairy tales.