Atheists are just as deluded as theists...

[ding]

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

I don’t see anything special about me so I really don’t know what you are talking about when you wonder about my skill set.

Your ability to know that I will accept nothing as proof, even though I am confident that I will gladly give anything you have to offer a fair and honest evaluation.

I have given you every opportunity to tell me what it would take and you have declined.

I asked westwall one time and he answered directly. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do the same unless there was nothing you would accept.

 

[buttercup]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

I'm sure that is very profound for someone who is a true believer because that is what they were taught as a kid. At one time it would have made sense to me.

You didn’t acknowledge anything she said, you brushed it off in a very condescending way. Why do you assume that believers only believe because it’s what they were taught? I was dragged to catholic church as a child by my mom, and I rejected all of it, for many, many years. I was not a believer, because all I saw was religion. I came to faith in God in my mid-30s, and it wasn’t because of what anyone taught me. See how arrogant it is for atheists to assume those things? They assume that everyone is stupid and that they are the only smart ones. That pride is precisely what blinds them to God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, my perspective is not "way off". It comes from many conversations with many atheists.

Not buying it. I have had many conversations with atheists as well and none of what you say is even remotely an accurate description of their views. Couple that with the amazing coincidence that tye beliefs you ascribe to them align perfect tly with your narrative, and it's easy to conclude that your analysis is overwrought and contrived. You are not describing their beliefs...you are describing how you manage to fit their beliefs into your paradigm.

 

[ding]

No, my perspective is not "way off". It comes from many conversations with many atheists.

Not buying it. I have had many conversations with atheists as well and none of what you say is even remotely an accurate description of their views. Couple that with the amazing coincidence that tye beliefs you ascribe to them align perfect tly with your narrative, and it's easy to conclude that your analysis is overwrought and contrived. You are not describing their beliefs...you are describing how you manage to fit their beliefs into your paradigm.

I am. I see it daily here and I bet you do too. Atheists reject God for any number of reasons but the number one reason they reject God is that God doesn’t magically stop bad things from happening to good people.

Merriweather is spot on.

 

[ding]

No, my perspective is not "way off". It comes from many conversations with many atheists.

Not buying it. I have had many conversations with atheists as well and none of what you say is even remotely an accurate description of their views. Couple that with the amazing coincidence that tye beliefs you ascribe to them align perfect tly with your narrative, and it's easy to conclude that your analysis is overwrought and contrived. You are not describing their beliefs...you are describing how you manage to fit their beliefs into your paradigm.

How many times have you seen atheists bring up deformed babies here as their reason for rejecting God?

 

[Meriweather]

Not buying it. I have had many conversations with atheists as well and none of what you say is even remotely an accurate description of their views. Couple that with the amazing coincidence that tye beliefs you ascribe to them align perfect tly with your narrative, and it's easy to conclude that your analysis is overwrought and contrived. You are not describing their beliefs...you are describing how you manage to fit their beliefs into your paradigm.

Shrug. So you haven't talked to anyone in my family and our friends or entered into any of these types of conversations. So, what do you talk about with other atheists?

 

[MaryL]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

There is no proof, that we all agree on. I am an agnostic. At this point, I don't care if God exists or not. What difference does it make?

 

[Meriweather]

There is no proof, that we all agree on. I am an agnostic. At this point, I don't care if God exists or not. What difference does it make?

If I am reading this correctly, you are an agnostic who no longer cares if God exists or not. The question then, is, Would you care if you knew He existed? Or is it, "God or no God, it is all the same."

 

[ding]

What difference does it make

Peace through the storm.

 

[MaryL]

There is no proof, that we all agree on. I am an agnostic. At this point, I don't care if God exists or not. What difference does it make?

If I am reading this correctly, you are an agnostic who no longer cares if God exists or not. The question then, is, Would you care if you knew He existed? Or is it, "God or no God, it is all the same."

If I cared, would that make god any more or less real? That isn't the question you should be concerned with.If god exists, well, forgiveness is divine. And if not, whistle past the graveyard. Life goes on.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've had time to actually study the bible. In depth study will produce more atheists than anything else I can think of.

What do you mean by "in depth." Did you study the original languages, histories, and cultures? Or was it a study of the modern English from a twentieth/twenty-first century cultural perspective?

I spent about 3 years studying everything I could find, and in communication with people who professed to be scholars. Histories and cultures, of course, as well as the machinations of actually compiling the manuscripts of the bible, but the original languages were out of my reach, even though I did learn the meanings of some words. I was struck mostly by the unavoidable contradictions that I couldn't resolve, and the only explanations I could get from anybody was that I just had to pray more and somehow the answers would magically come to me. Didn't happen. It became more like Scientology, where only the hierarchy were supposed to understand what was being said instead of the basic Christian beliefs that are supposedly simple enough that a child could understand. Of course you don't have to go through all that. Just a conscientious reading will present more questions than you will ever answer. I'm convinced that most people believe the bible because they don't really know what is in it.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

True, but why elect to see beauty, complexity, harmony and joy, but refrain from working to see/know God? It is not a choice of one or the other; it can be both.

The same reason I don't work to see/know unicorns.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

It's your proof. Convince me. I've already heard "I just know it" and "You have to accept the bible as fact" and all the crap along those lines, but if you can come up with something rational and believable, I'm listening.

I’m not trying to convince you. I couldn’t care less.

You made a statement that they are open to being convinced and I am curious what kind of evidence it would take.

Because it is my belief that there is no evidence you would accept. Which means you are not open to being convinced.

You are free to believe what you want. I told you I was open to being convinced. I'm guessing you just don't have anything that makes sense. If you did, you would present it.

In addition to creation itself, including things that are clearly the result of intelligence and not dumb luck… God reveals his presence to people on an individual basis, and opens people's eyes. But one thing is for sure, pride is blinding. Atheists need to drop the pride, first off, and if they genuinely and sincerely want to know the truth, they will find it, God will open their eyes.

Got it. Just believe this, and you will convince yourself that you are right.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

Basically it comes down to their belief that unless everything is perfect there can be no God.

The problem with atheists who believe they have complete information to criticize what God has created is that it is an emotional response in that it ignores all the good that does exist.

Rather than seeing the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy that life brings, they only see the things they dislike.

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

Exactly, which is why it is odd that some people believe God can’t exist because bad things happen to good people.

Never said he can't exist. I just haven't seen a reason to believe he does.

 

[ding]

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

It's your proof. Convince me. I've already heard "I just know it" and "You have to accept the bible as fact" and all the crap along those lines, but if you can come up with something rational and believable, I'm listening.

I’m not trying to convince you. I couldn’t care less.

You made a statement that they are open to being convinced and I am curious what kind of evidence it would take.

Because it is my belief that there is no evidence you would accept. Which means you are not open to being convinced.

You are free to believe what you want. I told you I was open to being convinced. I'm guessing you just don't have anything that makes sense. If you did, you would present it.

In addition to creation itself, including things that are clearly the result of intelligence and not dumb luck… God reveals his presence to people on an individual basis, and opens people's eyes. But one thing is for sure, pride is blinding. Atheists need to drop the pride, first off, and if they genuinely and sincerely want to know the truth, they will find it, God will open their eyes.

Got it. Just believe this, and you will convince yourself that you are right.

Can I use things you create as evidence?

 

[ding]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

Basically it comes down to their belief that unless everything is perfect there can be no God.

The problem with atheists who believe they have complete information to criticize what God has created is that it is an emotional response in that it ignores all the good that does exist.

Rather than seeing the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy that life brings, they only see the things they dislike.

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

Exactly, which is why it is odd that some people believe God can’t exist because bad things happen to good people.

Never said he can't exist. I just haven't seen a reason to believe he does.

What reason would you accept?

 

[BULLDOG]

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

No big deal. I find it entertaining to give nut bags free reign and see just how far they will roam. I spent more than a month of IMs letting Dale Smith exhaust every reason he had to believe that chem trails are real. I was honestly prepared to accept any provable evidence he might have. Sadly, it all came down to "those clouds sure look funny to me", but entertaining still.

Nut bags?

A telltale trait of militant atheists is that they condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

So because I have different beliefs than you and challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner you believe I am a nut bag?

Wouldn’t the nut bag be the person who condemns respect for someone else for no other reason that they didn’t believe the same thing?

In this case, a nut bag would be someone who insists that I believe in a God, and their specific religions dogma just because they say it is so. If you care to redeem Christianity of that silly reputation, or you have something other than that specific explanation, I would be glad to hear what you have to say.

Well considering that you used that term while having a conversation with fort fun about me, I hope you will forgive me if I don’t believe you didnt mean it to be directed at me. But putting that aside my point still stands because even with your explanation all you are really doing is rationalizing your behavior by saying they deserved it.

I don’t believe Christianity needs any redeeming because its good has far outweighed its bad. And let us remember that it is Christians and not Christianity that has been responsible for the good and the bad.

I much prefer to drain the dirty water rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm sure you intended that to have some kind of meaning.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

I don’t see anything special about me so I really don’t know what you are talking about when you wonder about my skill set.

Your ability to know that I will accept nothing as proof, even though I am confident that I will gladly give anything you have to offer a fair and honest evaluation.

I have given you every opportunity to tell me what it would take and you have declined.

I asked westwall one time and he answered directly. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do the same unless there was nothing you would accept.

I can't control what you see. I made the offer. Your move.

 

[ding]

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

No big deal. I find it entertaining to give nut bags free reign and see just how far they will roam. I spent more than a month of IMs letting Dale Smith exhaust every reason he had to believe that chem trails are real. I was honestly prepared to accept any provable evidence he might have. Sadly, it all came down to "those clouds sure look funny to me", but entertaining still.

Nut bags?

A telltale trait of militant atheists is that they condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

So because I have different beliefs than you and challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner you believe I am a nut bag?

Wouldn’t the nut bag be the person who condemns respect for someone else for no other reason that they didn’t believe the same thing?

In this case, a nut bag would be someone who insists that I believe in a God, and their specific religions dogma just because they say it is so. If you care to redeem Christianity of that silly reputation, or you have something other than that specific explanation, I would be glad to hear what you have to say.

Well considering that you used that term while having a conversation with fort fun about me, I hope you will forgive me if I don’t believe you didnt mean it to be directed at me. But putting that aside my point still stands because even with your explanation all you are really doing is rationalizing your behavior by saying they deserved it.

I don’t believe Christianity needs any redeeming because its good has far outweighed its bad. And let us remember that it is Christians and not Christianity that has been responsible for the good and the bad.

I much prefer to drain the dirty water rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm sure you intended that to have some kind of meaning.

Yes, as a response to your post. Context is everything.

 

[ding]

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

I don’t see anything special about me so I really don’t know what you are talking about when you wonder about my skill set.

Your ability to know that I will accept nothing as proof, even though I am confident that I will gladly give anything you have to offer a fair and honest evaluation.

I have given you every opportunity to tell me what it would take and you have declined.

I asked westwall one time and he answered directly. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t do the same unless there was nothing you would accept.

I can't control what you see. I made the offer. Your move.

You can only control what you dodge.