Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.
Why is that?
Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?
These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.
You don't quite grasp English. Words mean things. It's pretty basic really, I'm not sure how you got confused.Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738
You don't quite grasp English. Words mean things. It's pretty basic really, I'm not sure how you got confused.Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738
Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.
Why is that?
Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?
These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.
Whats nonsense is the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit toward those free from faith, and others who arent Christian, such as Muslims.
For those free from faith the issue has nothing to do with a god, as it clearly doesnt exist; it has to do with the arrogance common to a significant number of Christians.
This thread is proof of that ignorance, hate, and arrogance.
If it doesn't exist, why do you care?
It means you're a liar. You're the one that wants to misuse words, not me. Dictionaries are what educated people use for word definitions, not internet forum agenda driven obfuscation. There has to be a reason for it and the hostility involved in using dictionaries so I'll stick with my original analysis.You don't quite grasp English. Words mean things. It's pretty basic really, I'm not sure how you got confused.Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738
Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
See this:
They prefer the atheist word since it has an anti-Christian implication to it, culturally speaking and opposing Christianity is the main goal. They try to play semantics when justifying the use of the term but either you don't believe God exists, you do or you don't know. I can understand those that say they aren't convinced, falling into the 'I don't know' camp but to claim God doesn't exist means that you have access to all known and unknown aspects of the universe, which is nutty.
It indicates that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. That's right, words do have meanings.
It means you're a liar. You're the one that wants to misuse words, not me. Dictionaries are what educated people use for word definitions, not internet forum agenda driven obfuscation. There has to be a reason for it and the hostility involved in using dictionaries so I'll stick with my original analysis.You don't quite grasp English. Words mean things. It's pretty basic really, I'm not sure how you got confused.
Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
See this:
They prefer the atheist word since it has an anti-Christian implication to it, culturally speaking and opposing Christianity is the main goal. They try to play semantics when justifying the use of the term but either you don't believe God exists, you do or you don't know. I can understand those that say they aren't convinced, falling into the 'I don't know' camp but to claim God doesn't exist means that you have access to all known and unknown aspects of the universe, which is nutty.
It indicates that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. That's right, words do have meanings.
You may be done but the crack head is the one trying to redefine dictionary terms in a way to suit an agenda. The rest of us will use words as the English language defines them.It means you're a liar. You're the one that wants to misuse words, not me. Dictionaries are what educated people use for word definitions, not internet forum agenda driven obfuscation. There has to be a reason for it and the hostility involved in using dictionaries so I'll stick with my original analysis.See this:
They prefer the atheist word since it has an anti-Christian implication to it, culturally speaking and opposing Christianity is the main goal. They try to play semantics when justifying the use of the term but either you don't believe God exists, you do or you don't know. I can understand those that say they aren't convinced, falling into the 'I don't know' camp but to claim God doesn't exist means that you have access to all known and unknown aspects of the universe, which is nutty.
It indicates that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. That's right, words do have meanings.
Ok, crack head. We're done.
You may be done but the crack head is the one trying to redefine dictionary terms in a way to suit an agenda. The rest of us will use words as the English language defines them.It means you're a liar. You're the one that wants to misuse words, not me. Dictionaries are what educated people use for word definitions, not internet forum agenda driven obfuscation. There has to be a reason for it and the hostility involved in using dictionaries so I'll stick with my original analysis.
Ok, crack head. We're done.
True. I don't because there is no case. We have the English dictionary and then we have you. People are free to choose. How many times are we going to be done anyway?You may be done but the crack head is the one trying to redefine dictionary terms in a way to suit an agenda. The rest of us will use words as the English language defines them.Ok, crack head. We're done.
Yes, Mr. Colloquial Faith. You don't have a case.
True. I don't because there is no case. We have the English dictionary and then we have you. People are free to choose. How many times are we going to be done anyway?You may be done but the crack head is the one trying to redefine dictionary terms in a way to suit an agenda. The rest of us will use words as the English language defines them.
Yes, Mr. Colloquial Faith. You don't have a case.
Yes I opined on it since it's been my observation and personal conversation with many so called atheists over the years. Most are agnostic. When pressed about their choice of terminology it inevitably turns to Christianity and the Bible. I suspect it's a sore spot for you too and your behavior belies the fact.True. I don't because there is no case. We have the English dictionary and then we have you. People are free to choose. How many times are we going to be done anyway?Yes, Mr. Colloquial Faith. You don't have a case.
They prefer the atheist word since it has an anti-Christian implication to it, culturally speaking and opposing Christianity is the main goal.
This is you opining. I'm going to make this very easy for you. Welcome to ignore.
Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738
Posts where Iceweasel uses the colloquial faith instead of reasoning, or deductive reasoning to be more specific, which in turn undermines science as a whole. This is important.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-7.html#post8881090
Also in the above, please note the argument from first cause phrase. It is an argument widely used by theists. The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with a first cause. It's why I left the wiki link. Because yes when attempting to put the Big Bang into a first cause argument........you do sound insane.
It is also found here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-8.html#post8881229
Your posts that indicate the same regarding the colloquial faith instead of deductive reasoning AND this will explain why you are so damned baffled. We are, in fact, carrying on two different conversations. Note that I repeatedly state from the get go that there is no evidence.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883964
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883980
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8884015
Which brings us to this post by Iceweasel:
1. Others believe the proof is everywhere. Doesn't bother me a bit, again. Don't care.
2. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. We are now entering the irreducible complexity zone: Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design demands a designer. It is also a pseudo science
3. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.I have already pointed out the term proof and have consistently stated evidence. But, now we have special considerations meaning that it cannot be determined from a scientific method.
4. There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Removal from science all together.
5.Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. Repeatedly addressed this.
6. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith. The Bible is the source for the theists. It is historically inaccurate. Not all ID people are Christian but the vast majority of them are. So, yes, that history (or the lack there of) comes into play.
First and foremost, I'll concede point 4 to you. Honestly missed what you meant by that when I responded. Good point.
I do agree with Iceweasel to the degree that our current level of technology and knowledge of the universe doesn't even give us terms by which to conceive of such a test. That said, I accept that it's possible that, at some point, human knowledge and technology will advance to the point that proving or disproving God via experimentation may be possible (at least to the degree that you can prove or disprove anything. Socratic standards will never quite be satisfied).
Now, as far as not understanding Atheists, come on. . . look at this board. I've had arguments with a lot of "atheists" who, after about 4 posts, have to correct me that they don't believe there is no God, they just aren't convinced that there -is- a God. That's agnosticism, not atheism, yet many of these agnostics identify themselves as atheists. Sorry, but what Iceweasel said there is pretty accurate, though whether or not it's -most- atheists isn't something I'll claim to be able to confirm or deny. It's a fuckin -lot- of 'em, though, I will say that.
Past that, if you think that admitting that there is no proof for or against the existence of a God ignores deductive reasoning, I'd have to say the one lacking the deductive reasoning is you. "There is no God" has never been proven. To accept that as fact is faith, not the other way around.
Now, then.
1 and 2: You and I agree there, mostly, though calling irreducible complexity a pseudo-science is a little generous, by my standards. There's actually been lab tests where pure impact has caused amino acids to form more complex proteins, these tests done in response to the theory that comet and asteroid impacts in the Earth's early stages were responsible for life on our rock. The fact that pure impact could cause increases in complexity is evidence (not proof, mind you) that life might -could- spring forth from matter without help from a conscious entity. If the only evidence out there one way or another on irreducible complexity is evidence to the contrary, staying on board that theory isn't scientific in the least. It's just giving into untested preconceptions.
3: This statement, on its own, I agree with. Though there might be evidence that suggests that any of the popular explanations of God are false, this evidence is by no means conclusive, and for literally EVERYONE who wasn't a part of gathering and testing this evidence, it is a matter of faith to say that this evidence even exists.
To say this doesn't remove anything from the scientific method. It simply says that if your experiment didn't yield conclusive proof (which none have, yet), then saying that you have proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That isn't just true, it's undisputable. You simply don't consider evidence conclusive proof just because the theory you're pointing that evidence at hasn't been disproven. If your evidence leaves room for multiple explanations, you haven't proven anything.
5. Yes, you have repeatedly addressed this, but not in a manner adequate to prove your point, and I have repeatedly addressed -that-
6. The bible might come into play depending on whose theory you're arguing against, but to say that disproving the bible does -anything- to disprove the existence of a deity is simply dishonest. Knocking out one of infinite potential explanations still leaves infinite potential explanations.
On top of that, even if you can find inconsistencies and untruths in the bible, you still haven't disproven the book as a whole. After all, as those arguing against the bible like to remind everyone, that book has been translated and retranslated umpteen times. The likelihood that a lot was lost, confused, or intentionally changed is almost certain, allowing for the possibility that translations led to a lot of mistakes throughout modern bibles, but that the gist is still correct.
I don't believe this, mind you, but I must admit that the possibility's never been disproven.
Thanks for breaking your argument down thusly. This sort of debate is much more enjoyable to me than trying to discredit each other.
It's easier to keep up with this way. I am going to have to do this piece by piece simply because of time.
First of all, I want to set something straight so that I don't have to revisit it. I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic. Now, agnostics come in many flavors but I encounter three types. The first camp is made up those people who love philosophy. They enjoy questions such as "Why are we here?" and "What purpose do we or I serve?" and "Are men born good or evil?" and "Do we have free will?" These folks could do this all day long and this is how they get their rocks off. That's perfectly fine with me. Doesn't bother me a bit. I, personally, find philosophy to be a bunch of BS and mental masturbation but for some it makes them happy. It's as if they are driven.
The second group that I encounter are those that want to play just-in-case-y. Just-in-case-y it's all true then I can ride that fence. Included in this category are those that are afraid of being nailed as those horrible atheists. It's more a self defense. Some of these people also like philosophy but it's for a few hours with a glass of wine and they have other competing interests.
The third group that I frequently encounter are those that are too lazy to read the bible but have heard that somewhere out there are some issues with it. Their words not mine. They have zero interest in it or the history surrounding it or religion or history in general. They take pieces of what they have heard or read and create their own philosophy. This group is more spiritual and have a tendency to focus on how they feel. Nothing wrong with any of those folks.
Evidence for the existence of any God is: zero. Outside of that it is mental masturbation.
Not only can I nail what is in that bible, I can do so outside of it: historically. That's my preference simply because it is, to me, more fascinating. I can do it all day long and it's how I get my rocks off. Late antiquity (although I keep trying to leave this time period). Not looking for ways to slam the bible or any specific religion. That's just a perfect side dish. Frankly, it's inescapable.
Which leaves us with exactly where we were before to an extent.
